?

[Soyeong]

Then the New Covenant was wrong when it said that the Messiah brought in a new and better covenant. Superior to the Old Covenant.

Do you think that you can be under two covenants?

Let me also say that when Psalm's was written they didn't have a choice. You are choosing to push the Law and Old Covenant which is dissing Christ. I have no idea why. You believe in Yeshua, but then go back to the Old Covenant after He made a better covenant in His blood.

I find this very odd. I wish you could help me understand.

God has always been holy, righteous, and good, so the way to act according to God's character has existed unchangingly from the beginning independently of any covenant, though it was later revealed through the Mosaic law. So there is a difference between a set of instructions for how to act according to God's character and a covenant agreement to abide by those instructions. While we are no longer under the Mosaic Covenant, we are still under the same God with the same character and the same holy, righteous, and good standard. Anyone who wants to find out how to do what is holy, righteous, and good can find out by reading what God revealed through the Mosaic law (Romans 7:12) regardless of which covenant, if any, they are under, but as part of the New Covenant, we are still told to do what God has revealed to be holy, righteous, and good and to avoid what He has revealed to be sin (1 Peter 1:13-16, 1 John 3:4-10, Ephesians 2:10). If doing a particular action was in accordance with God's character before Messiah came, but after he came that action was no longer according to His character, then God's character has changed, but God's character is eternal and does not change. According to Hebrews 8:7-12, the New Covenant has a superior mediator and is based on superior promises, but it does not say that it was based on superior laws because that would require being under a superior God with a superior standard of holiness, righteousness, and goodness.

Yeshua set a perfect example for how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic law and we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22) and to walk in the same way that he walked (1 John 2:3-6), so we should also live according the the Mosaic law. According to Titus 2:11-14, our salvation involves being trained by grace to do what God has revealed to be godly, righteous, and good and to renounce doing what He has revealed to be ungodly and sinful, which is essentially what the Mosaic law was given to instruct us how to do. Furthermore, verse 14 says that Yeshua gave himself to redeem us from all lawlessness, so rejecting his example of obedience to the Mosaic law and going back to the lawlessness that he gave himself to redeem us from is what would be dissing him.

Interesting you pick David.

But what about the Israelite's who built and worshipped the golden calf? Or the times when they did not listen to the prophets?

I mean, let's be well rounded about what happened in the Old Testament. I can list twice as many negative events as you can list positive. As a matter of fact, a Messiah was sent because the Israelite's could not keep it.

Just love how you read into the Old Covenant, disrespecting the covenant in Messiah's blood. Was the Father out of His mind sending His Son then?

In general the good kings lived for much longer than the evil kings did, so if you add it up the years, then you will that Israel lived under a good king for about 80% of the time, so I think the ratio is in the other direction. Nevertheless, Israel broke God's covenant with them, however, in Deuteronomy 30:11-14, God said that what He commanded was not too difficult for them, so the problem was not that obeying the law was hard, but that their hearts were hard. God solved this problem not by lowering His righteous standard, but by making a New Covenant where he would take away our hearts of stone, give us hearts of flesh, send His Spirit to lead us in obedience to His law (Ezekiel 36:26-27), put his law in our minds and write it on our hearts (Jeremiah 31:33), and by sending His Son to give himself to redeem us from all lawlessness, so that we could be free to obey it and meet is righteous requirement (Romans 8:3-4). So Messiah was sent because the Israelites couldn't keep it in order to help us to keep it - with God nothing is impossible.

You point Christians back to the Law every time you can, yet don't acknowledge that gentiles were NEVER under the Old Covenant. How convenient.

I agree that Gentiles were never under the Mosaic covenant, however, if Gentiles have never been under the God's holy, righteous, and good standard revealed through the Mosaic law, then they have never needed to repent, they have never needed grace, they have never needed Messiah to come and redeem them from lawlessness, they have never needed the Gospel.

 

[ToBeLoved]

God has always been holy, righteous, and good, so the way to act according to God's character has existed unchangingly from the beginning independently of any covenant, though it was later revealed through the Mosaic law. So there is a difference between a set of instructions for how to act according to God's character and a covenant agreement to abide by those instructions. While we are no longer under the Mosaic Covenant, we are still under the same God with the same character and the same holy, righteous, and good standard. Anyone who wants to find out how to do what is holy, righteous, and good can find out by reading what God revealed through the Mosaic law (Romans 7:12) regardless of which covenant, if any, they are under, but as part of the New Covenant, we are still told to do what God has revealed to be holy, righteous, and good and to avoid what He has revealed to be sin (1 Peter 1:13-16, 1 John 3:4-10, Ephesians 2:10). If doing a particular action was in accordance with God's character before Messiah came, but after he came that action was no longer according to His character, then God's character has changed, but God's character is eternal and does not change. According to Hebrews 8:7-12, the New Covenant has a superior mediator and is based on superior promises, but it does not say that it was based on superior laws because that would require being under a superior God with a superior standard of holiness, righteousness, and goodness.

Yeshua set a perfect example for how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic law and we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22) and to walk in the same way that he walked (1 John 2:3-6), so we should also live according the the Mosaic law. According to Titus 2:11-14, our salvation involves being trained by grace to do what God has revealed to be godly, righteous, and good and to renounce doing what He has revealed to be ungodly and sinful, which is essentially what the Mosaic law was given to instruct us how to do. Furthermore, verse 14 says that Yeshua gave himself to redeem us from all lawlessness, so rejecting his example of obedience to the Mosaic law and going back to the lawlessness that he gave himself to redeem us from is what would be dissing him.



In general the good kings lived for much longer than the evil kings did, so if you add it up the years, then you will that Israel lived under a good king for about 80% of the time, so I think the ratio is in the other direction. Nevertheless, Israel broke God's covenant with them, however, in Deuteronomy 30:11-14, God said that what He commanded was not too difficult for them, so the problem was not that obeying the law was hard, but that their hearts were hard. God solved this problem not by lowering His righteous standard, but by making a New Covenant where he would take away our hearts of stone, give us hearts of flesh, send His Spirit to lead us in obedience to His law (Ezekiel 36:26-27), put his law in our minds and write it on our hearts (Jeremiah 31:33), and by sending His Son to give himself to redeem us from all lawlessness, so that we could be free to obey it and meet is righteous requirement (Romans 8:3-4). So Messiah was sent because the Israelites couldn't keep it in order to help us to keep it - with God nothing is impossible.



I agree that Gentiles were never under the Mosaic covenant, however, if Gentiles have never been under the God's holy, righteous, and good standard revealed through the Mosaic law, then they have never needed to repent, they have never needed grace, they have never needed Messiah to come and redeem them from lawlessness, they have never needed the Gospel.

You have fooled yourself and are not familiar enough with the New Testament or pointing people to the Law that they ARE NOT under.

I will leave it at that.

Do you even believe that Yeshua is the Messiah? Or are you still waiting for the Messiah?

That might explain a lot.

 

[Soyeong]

You have fooled yourself and are not familiar enough with the New Testament or pointing people to the Law that they ARE NOT under.

I will leave it at that.

Romans 6:14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.

Romans 7:21-22 So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. 22 For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, 23 but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. 24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

Paul described the law that we are not under as being one where sin had dominion over us, which fits his description of the law of sin, which Paul contrasted with the Mosaic law. In Romans 7, Paul said that the Mosaic law was not sin, that it revealed to us what sin is, that it is holy, righteous, and good, that it is the good that he sought to do, that it is the good that he delighted in doing, and the law that he obeyed with his mind, but contrasted that with a law of sin that came about to increase trespasses, to stir up sin to bear fruit unto death, that had dominion over him, that caused him not to do the good that he wanted to do, and that he served with his flesh. In Galatians 5:16-23, everything listed as works of the flesh that are against the Spirit are also against the Mosaic law while everything listed as fruits of the Spirit are also in accordance with the Mosaic law, so it likewise does not make any sense to interpret verse 18 as saying that we aren't under the Mosaic law if we are led by the Spirit because it doesn't fit the description. It's talking about a law that stirs up the works of the flesh that are against God, not a law that was given by God, so it is the law of sin that fits the description of the law that he is talking about. Furthermore, the Spirit has the role of leading us in obedience to God's law (Ezekiel 36:26-27), so these two verses can not be referring to the same law.

You say that I have fooled myself, but I am the one who is advocating following the laws of the God that we follow and following the example of the Messiah that we follow. I used to hold a similar position to you because that is what I had been taught growing up, but after years of study, I become convinced that my understanding of the law was wrong. Part of what triggered that was looking at the stark contrast between how Jews like David loved God's law and delighted in it and how Christians view the law as a heavy legalistic burden, and I came to the conclusion that the Jews had the right of it. Paul also delighted in God's law and said that our faith upholds the law, so when we interpret the NT without a negative slant towards God's holy, righteous, and good law, I found that the Bible makes much more sense and has much more continuity than I had given it credit for. So I think the NT is in full support of keeping the Mosaic law, but let me ask you this: If God commanded you to do something and you think that Paul or the Jerusalem Council said that you don't have to follow His command, then are you a follower of God or of men?

Do you even believe that Yeshua is the Messiah? Or are you still waiting for the Messiah?

That might explain a lot.

Of course I believe that Yeshua is the Messiah. In Titus 2:14, it does not say that he came to redeem us from the law, but to redeem us from all lawlessness. Do you believe that he came to free us from doing what God said was sin or to make it so that we could be free to do what God said was sin?

 

[ToBeLoved]

Romans 6:14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.

Cool, proving my point that we are not under the Torah law. I like it!

 

[ToBeLoved]

Romans 6:14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.

Romans 7:21-22 So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. 22 For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, 23 but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. 24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

Paul described the law that we are not under as being one where sin had dominion over us, which fits his description of the law of sin, which Paul contrasted with the Mosaic law. In Romans 7, Paul said that the Mosaic law was not sin, that it revealed to us what sin is, that it is holy, righteous, and good, that it is the good that he sought to do, that it is the good that he delighted in doing, and the law that he obeyed with his mind, but contrasted that with a law of sin that came about to increase trespasses, to stir up sin to bear fruit unto death, that had dominion over him, that caused him not to do the good that he wanted to do, and that he served with his flesh. In Galatians 5:16-23, everything listed as works of the flesh that are against the Spirit are also against the Mosaic law while everything listed as fruits of the Spirit are also in accordance with the Mosaic law, so it likewise does not make any sense to interpret verse 18 as saying that we aren't under the Mosaic law if we are led by the Spirit because it doesn't fit the description. It's talking about a law that stirs up the works of the flesh that are against God, not a law that was given by God, so it is the law of sin that fits the description of the law that he is talking about. Furthermore, the Spirit has the role of leading us in obedience to God's law (Ezekiel 36:26-27), so these two verses can not be referring to the same law.

You say that I have fooled myself, but I am the one who is advocating following the laws of the God that we follow and following the example of the Messiah that we follow. I used to hold a similar position to you because that is what I had been taught growing up, but after years of study, I become convinced that my understanding of the law was wrong. Part of what triggered that was looking at the stark contrast between how Jews like David loved God's law and delighted in it and how Christians view the law as a heavy legalistic burden, and I came to the conclusion that the Jews had the right of it. Paul also delighted in God's law and said that our faith upholds the law, so when we interpret the NT without a negative slant towards God's holy, righteous, and good law, I found that the Bible makes much more sense and has much more continuity than I had given it credit for. So I think the NT is in full support of keeping the Mosaic law, but let me ask you this: If God commanded you to do something and you think that Paul or the Jerusalem Council said that you don't have to follow His command, then are you a follower of God or of men?



Of course I believe that Yeshua is the Messiah. In Titus 2:14, it does not say that he came to redeem us from the law, but to redeem us from all lawlessness. Do you believe that he came to free us from doing what God said was sin or to make it so that we could be free to do what God said was sin?

One question and I will address your other points later, ok.

Do you believe that one person can be under two covenants, both the Old Covenant which includes Torah AND the New Covenant in Christ's blood that God says is a new, better and superior covenant?

That's all I want to know for now.

Are you under one covenant or two, in your opinion. And if one, which one?

 

[Soyeong]

Cool, proving my point that we are not under the Torah law. I like it!

I agree that we aren't under the law, but the issue is which law we aren't under. The fact that Paul contrast God's law with the law of sin means that they are not the same body of law and that we can't safely assume every time he spoke about laws that he was referring to the Torah. In fact much of the discussion about laws in the NT is not in regard to the Torah.

One question and I will address your other points later, ok.

Do you believe that one person can be under two covenants, both the Old Covenant which includes Torah AND the New Covenant in Christ's blood that God says is a new, better and superior covenant?

That's all I want to know for now.

Are you under one covenant or two, in your opinion. And if one, which one?

We are under just the the New Covenant, not the Mosaic Covenant, but the New Covenant still involves the privilege of getting to to follow the laws of our God. If someone wanted to communicate that we should obey the Mosaic law, then they could simply tell us to repent of our sins, or that we have been redeemed from lawlessness, or that we should have a holy conduct, or that we should practice righteousness, or that we are made new creations in Messiah to do good works, or that we should follow Messiah's example, or that we should follow his commands, or that we should walk in the same way he walked, or that we should refrain from following Israel's example of disobedience, or that we should be obedient slaves of God, or that faith without works is dead, or that we have been grafted into Israel, or that OT Scriptures are profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

 

[ToBeLoved]

God has always been holy, righteous, and good, so the way to act according to God's character has existed unchangingly from the beginning independently of any covenant, though it was later revealed through the Mosaic law. So there is a difference between a set of instructions for how to act according to God's character and a covenant agreement to abide by those instructions. While we are no longer under the Mosaic Covenant, we are still under the same God with the same character and the same holy, righteous, and good standard.

Don't take this offensively, but you would never treat God's covenant with Abraham or Moses with the wishy washy words you use talking about the New Covenant.

Really your not listening to God, unless God's Covenants are a joke, but then let's just toss out Moses and Abraham too. If you want to throw out the New Covenant WITH MESSIAH's blood. Then I will start speaking negative about Moses and Abraham.

Moses and Abraham aren't God you know.

 

[ToBeLoved]

I agree that we aren't under the law, but the issue is which law we aren't under.

It is dang well about which law we are under. No one can be under both covenants, that is a fallicy. To accept the Old Covenant law is to trample on Christ. The Bible says just that.

So I don't see how you think you can be under both. No one can be. Why is that so hard to understand.

 

[Soyeong]

Don't take this offensively, but you would never treat God's covenant with Abraham or Moses with the wishy washy words you use talking about the New Covenant.

Really your not listening to God, unless God's Covenants are a joke, but then let's just toss out Moses and Abraham too. If you want to throw out the New Covenant WITH MESSIAH's blood. Then I will start speaking negative about Moses and Abraham.

Moses and Abraham aren't God you know.

Your post is rather confusing to me. I have no idea what you are referring as wishy washy word, how you think I am treating the New Covenant that I wouldn't treat the Abrahamic or Mosaic Covenants, why you would suggest that I might think God's Covenants are a joke, why we should toss out Moses and Abraham, why you think I want to throw out the New Covenant with Messiah's blood, or why you would imply that I think Moses and Abraham are God.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Paul described the law that we are not under as being one where sin had dominion over us, which fits his description of the law of sin, which Paul contrasted with the Mosaic law.

How many laws you think are in the New Covenant.

Do you think every word Paul says is a law? No it's not. We are commanded to follow God's Word in obedience, but it is not comparable to Mosaic Law.

Does Christ forgive sin now?

Were animals sacrificed for sin before?

Maybe animals mean more than Christ to you then. Maybe God is a chump that the Father sent for kicks to watch Him suffer?

Get real.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Your post is rather confusing to me. I have no idea what you are referring as wishy washy word, how you think I am treating the New Covenant that I wouldn't treat the Abrahamic or Mosaic Covenants, why you would suggest that I might think God's Covenants are a joke, why we should toss out Moses and Abraham, why you think I want to throw out the New Covenant with Messiah's blood, or why you would imply that I think Moses and Abraham are God.

You talk about Moses and the law given to him maybe higher than God. Moses is almost spoken of like he is God or something.

It's interesting how other people don't realize how much they write about a topic.

Very odd. Clearly their is created, and Creator. Abraham, created. Moses, created. Jesus Christ, Creator.

Did not ALL the Patriarch's bow down to God? Did not God say their was to be a NEW COVENANT. A better covenant, on God's blood. What YHWH promised to the Israelite's. But YHWH fulfilling His promises, still point back to the law.

What else do you people want if not God Himself's blood. Nothing is good enough not to go back to the law. Amazing.

 

[Soyeong]

It is dang well about which law we are under. No one can be under both covenants, that is a fallicy. To accept the Old Covenant law is to trample on Christ. The Bible says just that.

So I don't see how you think you can be under both. No one can be. Why is that so hard to understand.

1.) Do you agree that God has always been righteous, so the way to do what is righteous existed from the beginning independently of any covenant? Even if God had made no covenants with man, there would still exist a way to act according to God's righteousness.

2.) Do you agree that there is a difference between a set of instructions for how to do what is righteous and a covenant agreement to abide by those instructions? Someone who was part of the Mosaic Covenant who committed murder would be guilty of both violating their covenant agreement and be acting against God's righteousness, while someone who was not part of the Mosaic Covenant would still be guilty of acting against God's righteousness.

3.) Take a scenario where you have no idea how to have a holy conduct, God revealed to one person how to have a holy conduct, that person recorded those instructions and gave you a copy, God told you to do what is holy, and no covenants are involved. Should you be able to figure out what things God wants you to do?

4.) Where does the Bible say that to accept Old Covenant law is to trample on Christ?

5.) I have never suggested that we can be under both covenants.

 

[Soyeong]

You talk about Moses and the law given to him maybe higher than God. Moses is almost spoken of like he is God or something.

It's interesting how other people don't realize how much they write about a topic.

Very odd. Clearly their is created, and Creator. Abraham, created. Moses, created. Jesus Christ, Creator.

Did not ALL the Patriarch's bow down to God? Did not God say their was to be a NEW COVENANT. A better covenant, on God's blood. What YHWH promised to the Israelite's. But YHWH fulfilling His promises, still point back to the law.

What else do you people want if not God Himself's blood. Nothing is good enough not to go back to the law. Amazing.

I use the phrase "Mosaic law" and "God's law" interchangeably simply because the Mosaic law was given by God through Moses. This in no way implies anything like that I think Moses is higher than God or that he is God. I have never suggested anything like that. I completely agree that we are under just the New Covenant and not the Mosaic Covenant and that the New Covenant is superior. Jesus did not give himself to redeem us from all lawlessness so that we could go back to being lawless.

 

[Soyeong]

How many laws you think are in the New Covenant.

There are 1,050 commands in the NT, but they are all in accordance with the 613 commands in the OT.

Do you think every word Paul says is a law? No it's not. We are commanded to follow God's Word in obedience, but it is not comparable to Mosaic Law.

At times, Paul made it clear that he is stating his own opinion. Other than that, his commands did't originate from him, but from OT law. The Mosaic law is part of God's Word.

Does Christ forgive sin now?

It has always been Christ who forgives sin.

Were animals sacrificed for sin before?

The blood of goats and bulls never took away sin.

Maybe animals mean more than Christ to you then. Maybe God is a chump that the Father sent for kicks to watch Him suffer?

Get real.

I have never suggested anything like that animals mean more to me than Christ or that God is a chump that the Father sent for kicks to watch Him suffer. Are you just making up random stuff about what you think I believe now?

 

[ToBeLoved]

1.) Do you agree that God has always been righteous, so the way to do what is righteous existed from the beginning independently of any covenant? Even if God had made no covenants with man, there would still exist a way to act according to God's righteousness.

What does it have to do with God's righteousness? God has ALWAYS been righteous.

But who has EVER gotten righteousness from the Law? Name one.

2.) Do you agree that there is a difference between a set of instructions for how to do what is righteous and a covenant agreement to abide by those instructions? Someone who was part of the Mosaic Covenant who committed murder would be guilty of both violating their covenant agreement and be acting against God's righteousness, while someone who was not part of the Mosaic Covenant would still be guilty of acting against God's righteousness.

Disagree.

The New Covenant does not rest on obedience. The Israelite's were not obedient, God has done that already. It didn't work. So God changed it, wrote His Word on our hearts and minds so we could NOT FORGET. We get Christ's righteousness and the Father (YHWH) raised Him from the dead. YHWH was PLEASED with His Son and His sacrifice.

When was God pleased with the Old Covenant people keeping Torah? One example. Just one.

The Old Covenant is the ONLY covenant that rests on obedience. The Old Covenant is the covenant that no one get's righteousness from.

3.) Take a scenario where you have no idea how to have a holy conduct, God revealed to one person how to have a holy conduct, that person recorded those instructions and gave you a copy, God told you to do what is holy, and no covenants are involved. Should you be able to figure out what things God wants you to do?

'
Why would I have to create a scenario that could never exist?

Torah was the schoolmaster to Christ. We know what is sin. That is why the people were given the 10 Commandments and Mosaic Law, to know what is a sin and BE OBEDIENT to not sin.

So who did that?

4.) Where does the Bible say that to accept Old Covenant law is to trample on Christ?

Hebrews 10:1-12

1 The Law is only a shadow of the good things to come, not the realities themselves. It can never, by the same sacrifices offered year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 2 If it could, would not the offerings have ceased? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all and would no longer feel the guilt of their sins. 3 Instead, those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, 4 because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and of goats to take away sins.

5 Therefore, when Christ came into the world, He said: “Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, but a body You prepared for me. 6 In burnt offerings and sin offerings You took no delight. 7 Then I said, ‘Here I am, it is written about Me in the scroll: I have come to do Your will, O God.’” 8 In the passage above He says, “Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings You did not desire, nor did You delight in them” (although they are required by the Law). 9 Then He adds, “Here I am, I have come to do Your will.” He takes away the first to establish the second. 10 And by that will, we have been sanctified through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 Day after day every priest stands to minister and to offer again and again the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when this Priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, He sat down at the right hand of God.

Hebrews 10:28-30
28 Anyone who rejected the Law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much more severely do you think one deserves to be punished who has trampled on the Son of God, profaned the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine; I will repay,” and again, “The Lord will judge His people.”

5.) I have never suggested that we can be under both covenants.

Do you profane the blood of Christ, the Son of God? (Hebrews 10:29) How severly will YHWH punish you? (Hebrews 10:30)