Been told

[from scratch]

first, you must have a ceremony ..

then declare yourself CLEAN CLEAN CLEAN~!

three times makes it a charm . yepp .

weren't we supposed to be clean on the inside as a general focus?

In the interest of banter I thought it was 7 times in Naaman's case.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

In the interest of banter I thought it was 7 times in Naaman's case.

but didn't he say "unclean"?

poor chap, trying to use Godliness for gain .

 

[Son of Israel]

I know you didn't say anything about something being replaced. But that (first covenant in my verse) is the focus of the thread. JohnRabbit is going to show that I don't understand the Covenant made at Mt Sinai for some reason. At least this is what I think. I am not real sure what his idea or intention is. He hasn't shown his hand yet. Perhaps he is trying to get his presentation to an irrefutible position. I don't know. I do eagerly and impatiently wait. I think that JohnRabbit is going to discuss the contents of that covenant. Have to wait and see. I said the NC replaced the OC and gave a scrpture to back my point. Not a single thing in your response refers to what I said. I brought you back to the point of the thread - the first covenant. Perhaps I gave to much information at this stage. Please reread my post.

The thread is not about which is the first covenant anyway. It is about the contents of the first covenant. I think that I identified that covenant for you and the discussion.

I am just scratch. What do I intend to do here? Defend my position which has been challenged. So let's see what happens. Prove me wrong as you accuse. I'm willing to listen to facts. I bet ya it just might be very interesting. Join forces with JohnRabbit, He said I didn't know. He is the one to prove his point. He is the inspiration behind the thread. It is his challenge and I called with a show em if you got em. I will be delighted to show my aces over kings full house. Do you really have four of a kind? You might ask JohnRabbit what his challenge is. So far you have listed what you call covenants. Can or will you back it up? Genesis 3:15 is not a covenant. It is a promise to perform and not even spoken to Adam. JohnRabbit provided a definition I agree to. So get after it and leave the personal stuff in grade school.

So what do you say about my Hebrew reference on first and second? I think that is what JohnRabbit is talking about. Can you first identify that covenant? Then what do you have to say about it. My interest is only in how it affects salvation. So what is the purpose of the first covenant? I have read the contents of it, so that is not the question. The real question is the I don't understand and therefore asked.

Cat and mouse is a lot of fun. Who is the cat and who is the mouse? Or is the mouse scaring the cat? Lets find out. Tweetie Bird watches. There may even be a fuss over who is Tweetie Bird.

This is the OP;

"I don't have a clue what the first covenant is. So I'm here on a fact finding mission. I guess while we are at it I would like to see how many covenants there are and if any have a relationship with another, If so what is that relationship?"


I answered it. Look at my post. Don't play daft.

You want more than that? Why? You weren't challenged. I made a post, you got smart mouth with it. Now you want to play cat and mouse like some spiritual midget?? That shows a lot about you. You want to have fun at Christians' expense? Is that it?

But for fun then, so what about the covenant at Sinai? Are you an unredeemed Jew or something? If not, who possibly cares? We are delivered from that law of sin and bondage and death. All true Christians know this.

We live in the New Covenant in Christ's Blood. It is called the Law of Life, the Law of Liberty, the "Royal" law... Which frees us from the law of sin and death. Shall I quote the verses?

Learn about that one scratch. The New Covenant in Christ in which ALL other covenants are fulfilled. Then your words might be of value to someone in need of the gospel.

 

[RABBIT-HUNTER]

This is the OP;

"I don't have a clue what the first covenant is. So I'm here on a fact finding mission. I guess while we are at it I would like to see how many covenants there are and if any have a relationship with another, If so what is that relationship?"


I answered it. Look at my post. Don't play daft.

You want more than that? Why? You weren't challenged. I made a post, you got smart mouth with it. Now you want to play cat and mouse like some spiritual midget?? That shows a lot about you. You want to have fun at Christians' expense? Is that it?

But for fun then, so what about the covenant at Sinai? Are you an unredeemed Jew or something? If not, who possibly cares? We are delivered from that law of sin and bondage and death. All true Christians know this.

We live in the New Covenant in Christ's Blood. It is called the Law of Life, the Law of Liberty, the "Royal" law... Which frees us from the law of sin and death. Shall I quote the verses?

Learn about that one scratch. The New Covenant in Christ in which ALL other covenants are fulfilled. Then your words might be of value to someone in need of the gospel.

You are displaying way too much agression, for a forum. Please be polite.

 

[from scratch]

but didn't he say "unclean"?

poor chap, trying to use Godliness for gain .

I misread your post. But Naaman didn't go show the priest did he? I got it mixed up with wash or the ceremonial rituals the Jews/Isrealite was required to perform.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Sorry, i mistook Naaman for the person who took money for Elisha's healing of a leper and then became one.

I thought his name was Naaman... maybe it was another Naaman, but what's in a Name-an?

 

[from scratch]

Sorry, i mistook Naaman for the person who took money for Elisha's healing of a leper and then became one.

I thought his name was Naaman... maybe it was another Naaman, but what's in a Name-an?

I don't recall Elisha's servant ever being named. Guess we both otta go read the story in Kings.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I don't recall Elisha's servant ever being named. Guess we both otta go read the story in Kings.

ah no, 1st Kings 5, the guy with the leperosy who was healed was named Naaman. the servant's name was Gehazi.

 

[from scratch]

ah no, 1st Kings 5, the guy with the leperosy who was healed was named Naaman. the servant's name was Gehazi.

I rekulect now that ya mentioned it.

 

[JohnRabbit]

bro, with all due respect, your rabbit is stewed, you got scratch, SOI, and your humble frog, ready to bring all your thoughts to the obedience to Christ.

you know, in a funny way, i kinda fell bad for ya.

Good luck! let the rumble in the jungle begin!

thanks for your sympathy?

 

[Frogster]

thanks for your sympathy?

Any time bro.

 

[JohnRabbit]

I don't have a clue what the first covenant is. So I'm here on a fact finding mission. I guess while we are at it I would like to see how many covenants there are and if any have a relationship with another, If so what is that relationship?

the covenants that i have found are:

edenic covenant gen 1:36-30, 2:16-17.

adamic covenant gen 3:16-19.

noahic covenant gen 9: 8-11.

abrahamic covenant gen 12: 1-3, 6-7, gen 13: 14-17, gen 15, gen 22: 15-18.

palestinian covenant deut 30: 1-10.

mosaic covenant (the one we call the old covenant) ex 20-24, deut 11.

davidic covenant 2sam 7: 8-16.

new covenant jer 31: 31-34.

there are other covenants the bible mentions, but they are of man to God.

are you with me, so far?

 

[RABBIT-HUNTER]

the covenants that i have found are:

edenic covenant gen 1:36-30, 2:16-17.

adamic covenant gen 3:16-19.

noahic covenant gen 9: 8-11.

abrahamic covenant gen 12: 1-3, 6-7, gen 13: 14-17, gen 15, gen 22: 15-18.

palestinian covenant deut 30: 1-10.

mosaic covenant (the one we call the old covenant) ex 20-24, deut 11.

davidic covenant 2sam 7: 8-16.

new covenant jer 31: 31-34.

there are other covenants the bible mentions, but they are of man to God.

are you with me, so far?

Just so I am posted, what covenant do you think we are in? Thank you, Alex.

 

[from scratch]

the covenants that i have found are:

edenic covenant gen 1:36-30, 2:16-17.

adamic covenant gen 3:16-19.

noahic covenant gen 9: 8-11.

abrahamic covenant gen 12: 1-3, 6-7, gen 13: 14-17, gen 15, gen 22: 15-18.

palestinian covenant deut 30: 1-10.

mosaic covenant (the one we call the old covenant) ex 20-24, deut 11.

davidic covenant 2sam 7: 8-16.

new covenant jer 31: 31-34.

there are other covenants the bible mentions, but they are of man to God.

are you with me, so far?

I understand you so far. Now which one did you say I don't understand? I understand the discussion was to be about the Mosaic covenant. My thinking is that is the one called first in Hebrews that I don't understand. If you wish to discuss these others as first we have a problem as I would then contend that I have been misled.

It is also interesting that you combined both Abrahamic covenant into one.

 

[from scratch]

Just so I am posted, what covenant do you think we are in? Thank you, Alex.

You just might have asked the question that layed the golden egg for this discussion? Great question. I think it is the second or new covenant promised in Jeremiah and discussed in Hebrews.

 

[from scratch]

I never said any were replaced. I used the word "fulfilled" as by Christ and the writers of the New Covenant.
What is your problem?
Why the evil spirit?
I'm "free to be the first" to what?

who do you think you are?
I don't care what you are talking about. You sound bereft of the spirit of "all you intend to do here". Your carnal mind is just oozing here. whoever you are you have nothing of interest to say I can tell right now.
If you have an issue with what I said take it up with God. He'll slap you down fast with that attitude.

You obviously know nothing of Covenants if you argued with what I posted.

Ok you have my apologies. I did ask how many covenants there are. I forgot that I asked that. I knew it would come up as folks would try to derail the thread. I'm really looking for answers/responses/discussion to the first part of the OP. Sorry for jumping on you. But I also restated the real focus of the thread.

 

[RABBIT-HUNTER]

You just might have asked the question that layed the golden egg for this discussion? Great question. I think it is the second or new covenant promised in Jeremiah and discussed in Hebrews.

Yes, I am wondering what JohnRabbit thinks, and no doubt, to what degree he blends the two, as per your other thread. Time will tell. Alex.

 

[Son of Israel]

Whoever said this is in deep trouble of comprehension of the things of God;

"The basic argument as I understand it is there in reality is no new covenant which is a renewed covenant. Thus in reality the rules of the first (law) covenant are in force and we haven't been delivered from it. Salvation can indeed come by the law - after all Jesus says so Mat 19."

Thanks scratch, apologie accepted.

Now, who would create an argument about any of this? No, the New Covenant in Christ's blood is not a "renewed" covenant.

No, no man can be saved by the old Mosaic "law". All Christians knew this I thought.

It is what I rejoice in as a Christian in being saved out of the Jewish belief system.

It is why I can rejoice in receiving the Life of Christ in the New Covenant. To be free from that old abolished Law of sin and death.
That is why I eat all things in rejoicing of them being cleansed by God, for all men have been made clean in the New Covenant.
"That which God has cleansed is not unclean".
That is why I am at rest in His "DAY", the Sabbath, every moment of every day on the calendar. (Not just "one day of the week" as in the abolished law. For the true sabbath that was spoken of to come, is Now Here and has been for the last 2000 years for those who have received Christ come into them. They are called Saints)

Now, would a gentile fall away back to that Law? While a believing Jew is delivered from that law!? That would be confusion at the highest level.

No, Jesus didn't show that a man could be saved under the law.

He illustrated that the law "provided" the means for a man to be saved, yes of course. But as in the example of matt 19, no man could, because no man would choose it even when laid right out in front of Him. Man is too weak and too sinful to keep the Law that came from Sinai. He was in "bondage" to it for that reason, so God abolished it when Christ died. God Himself ripped the temple veil in half from "top to bottom" to visually illustrate His abolishing of that law.

He lovingly changed the law we were under, to save us from our sins. Our unrighteousness is why the law had to be changed. Not because there was anything wrong with the Law.

Of course there is no such thing as a "renewed" covenant. That is why you will never see such a thing in the Bible.

"Fulfilled" yes. "Renewed", no.

The "first" covenant spoken of in Hebrews is speaking of the first covenant to the Nation of Israel, the "marriage covenant". From Sinai.

The "Everlasting Covenant" was only that which was spoken to Abraham. There was nothing "everlasting" about the Sinai covenant due to the wickedness of man.

The only reason God provided the Sinai Covenant to Israel was because He intended to show all men that they were unable to keep it. In fact, they would all have been destroyed immediately after the Sinai adultery, if He hadn't promised to Abraham the "Seed" (Jesus). If Moses hadn't interceded, God would have destroyed every last soul of the Israelites because of their adultery committed against Him.

In prophecy, within the other covenants also, is that golden thread of God's promised sacrifice of Himself. The death of Him who married her in the old marriage covenant had to occur as the only other option to release the woman from the law without destroying her. God's sacrifice of His self is the only means by which the old is destroyed and the new is ratified and in force.

In time, Israel was divorced from that covenant and later, the Jews widowed themselves from that covenant. Because of unbelief. They killed their Husband.

God cosmically arranged all that intentionally to Herald coming and saving them from that "law of bondage of sin and death". So He died on the cross. His Israel/Judah wife was now "free from that law, free to marry Him raised from the dead".

When He died, He released His wife from the Mosaic Law, that old condemned marriage was done away with completely.

Just as completely as if a man divorces a wife, or widows her, the marriage and all it's ingredients are OVER.

Now, let's start HERE. Forget everything of the old covenant. It is worthless. It isn't in force any longer. Fact.

Let's move forward now and leave those things behind!

Let us now live in the freedom and life and joy and righteousness of the New Law of Liberty and Life in Christ in the Everlasting Covenant of the Abrahamic Promises of Eternal Life!

 

[from scratch]

Whoever said this is in deep trouble of comprehension of the things of God;

"The basic argument as I understand it is there in reality is no new covenant which is a renewed covenant. Thus in reality the rules of the first (law) covenant are in force and we haven't been delivered from it. Salvation can indeed come by the law - after all Jesus says so Mat 19."

Thanks scratch, apologie accepted.

Now, who would create an argument about any of this? No, the New Covenant in Christ's blood is not a "renewed" covenant.

No, no man can be saved by the old Mosaic "law". All Christians knew this I thought.

It is what I rejoice in as a Christian in being saved out of the Jewish belief system.

It is why I can rejoice in receiving the Life of Christ in the New Covenant. To be free from that old abolished Law of sin and death.
That is why I eat all things in rejoicing of them being cleansed by God, for all men have been made clean in the New Covenant.
"That which God has cleansed is not unclean".
That is why I am at rest in His "DAY", the Sabbath, every moment of every day on the calendar. (Not just "one day of the week" as in the abolished law. For the true sabbath that was spoken of to come, is Now Here and has been for the last 2000 years for those who have received Christ come into them. They are called Saints)

Now, would a gentile fall away back to that Law? While a believing Jew is delivered from that law!? That would be confusion at the highest level.

No, Jesus didn't show that a man could be saved under the law.

He illustrated that the law "provided" the means for a man to be saved, yes of course. But as in the example of matt 19, no man could, because no man would choose it even when laid right out in front of Him. Man is too weak and too sinful to keep the Law that came from Sinai. He was in "bondage" to it for that reason, so God abolished it when Christ died. God Himself ripped the temple veil in half from "top to bottom" to visually illustrate His abolishing of that law.

He lovingly changed the law we were under, to save us from our sins. Our unrighteousness is why the law had to be changed. Not because there was anything wrong with the Law.

Of course there is no such thing as a "renewed" covenant. That is why you will never see such a thing in the Bible.

"Fulfilled" yes. "Renewed", no.

The "first" covenant spoken of in Hebrews is speaking of the first covenant to the Nation of Israel, the "marriage covenant". From Sinai.

The "Everlasting Covenant" was only that which was spoken to Abraham. There was nothing "everlasting" about the Sinai covenant due to the wickedness of man.

The only reason God provided the Sinai Covenant to Israel was because He intended to show all men that they were unable to keep it. In fact, they would all have been destroyed immediately after the Sinai adultery, if He hadn't promised to Abraham the "Seed" (Jesus). If Moses hadn't interceded, God would have destroyed every last soul of the Israelites because of their adultery committed against Him.

In prophecy, within the other covenants also, is that golden thread of God's promised sacrifice of Himself. The death of Him who married her in the old marriage covenant had to occur as the only other option to release the woman from the law without destroying her. God's sacrifice of His self is the only means by which the old is destroyed and the new is ratified and in force.

In time, Israel was divorced from that covenant and later, the Jews widowed themselves from that covenant. Because of unbelief. They killed their Husband.

God cosmically arranged all that intentionally to Herald coming and saving them from that "law of bondage of sin and death". So He died on the cross. His Israel/Judah wife was now "free from that law, free to marry Him raised from the dead".

When He died, He released His wife from the Mosaic Law, that old condemned marriage was done away with completely.

Just as completely as if a man divorces a wife, or widows her, the marriage and all it's ingredients are OVER.

Now, let's start HERE. Forget everything of the old covenant. It is worthless. It isn't in force any longer. Fact.

Let's move forward now and leave those things behind!

Let us now live in the freedom and life and joy and righteousness of the New Law of Liberty and Life in Christ in the Everlasting Covenant of the Abrahamic Promises of Eternal Life!

I think the highlighted would be the position of JohnRabbit. It is the common postition of the the law pusher found on these forums. JohnRabbit is a tad slow in addressing his challenge that I don't understand the first covenant. I would love to see his explaination of things. I thought he was going to be hot and all over it. He seems to be gathering an argument (giving the benefit of a doubt). So JohnRabbit can you hurry up. I don't want to have to take up your side of the argument/debate. That certianly wouldn't bring much pleasure for me. I don't want to get it wrong.

JohnRabbit we're already about to start page 5. Where are you?

 

[RABBIT-HUNTER]

JohnRabbit we're already about to start page 5. Where are you?

Hi Scratch, I am waiting too, I have my scope, all adjusted.