Been told

[from scratch]

Been told

Perhaps you missed the above that is bold for you.

I thought you brought up the idea that a covenant was sealed in blood. So I guess I'm requesting proof for the blood in any of the covenants. I didn't make a request to discuss any of those covenants. I have acknowledged that they would come up and extended permission to name them, not really discuss them. But if you want to, be my guest. Just don't berate me for responses concerning them again. OK.

 

[from scratch]

do you even read your bible?

What do you think? It is your burden of proof which can't be established on my assumed knowledge. Yes I know way more than I'm letting on. I could easily argue your point for you.

 

[from scratch]

Some elements of a Blood Covenant:

Blood
Gifts
Oath
Curse
Blessing

Yes I read your previous post. However Dr Livingstone a wonderful man of God doesn't have anything to do with the Biblical covenants under discussion. I certianly agree that those can all be parts of a covenant. I think that the last 2 can be understood and not stated just by the nature of what occurs in a covenant.

 

[from scratch]

Then why didn't paul want the ministry of death, what was written on stone, 2 cor 3, for his churches, if the old and new cov are the same?

I am still wondering why, you do not think the new cov has began?

heb 12:22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, 23 and to the assembly [1] of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, 24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.

Give me scripture, to prove the new cov has not begaan. thanks.

Now that's going to be tuff to do. I wonder how JohnRabbit is going to get around the very words of God? It could prove to be very interesting.

 

[Frogster]

In the Hebrew custom Yes! A marriage preposal required a divorce.

rom 7;4..good one bro!

 

[Frogster]

Now that's going to be tuff to do. I wonder how JohnRabbit is going to get around the very words of God? It could prove to be very interesting.

yeeeep..it says we have come to it, not that it is for some future date.

 

[yedida]

How can you say it was not made yet? How could Paul call himself a minister of the New Covenant, in present tense terms?

2nd Corinthians 3:6
who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.


And what covennant, were they partaking of here?


1 Corinthians 11:25-26
In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

Thanks, Alex.

Just jumping in with this, some food for thought only.
First, please remember 1 Sam. 15:29, Mal. 3:16, and Heb. 13:8 when claiming something was abolished, also, Mat. 5:19-22.
Second, what covenant you ask? The original covenant has never been abrogated. Hashem said these words would stand forever. Forever hasn't ended yet. In fact, there is no end to forever. (And if there is an end, better check and see if the promises in the NT have ended, they were spoken of as being forever too.)
There is much in the Sinai covenant that has ended due to the fact that there is no temple (but will again be in effect when the temple is rebuilt, see Ezek's Temple chapters). And also due to the fact that not all of God's people are in the land, but will once again when all are present.
A covenant can be made and even have an administrator even before it comes into effect? That is done even today. A very simple example: you write a will with monies to go to your children's college education and to help them get started financially in their adulthood, they are provided for in one way when they come of age and another way at your death. You have an accountant that manages these funds with investments. It is a covenant made with and for your children, it is being administered and maintained but your children are still young and you are still alive therefore it is not completely yet in effect. That is where we are at in God's covenant thru Messiah.

I'm going back to just lurking.

 

[RABBIT-HUNTER]

Just jumping in with this, some food for thought only.
First, please remember 1 Sam. 15:29, Mal. 3:16, and Heb. 13:8 when claiming something was abolished, also, Mat. 5:19-22.
Second, what covenant you ask? The original covenant has never been abrogated. Hashem said these words would stand forever. Forever hasn't ended yet. In fact, there is no end to forever. (And if there is an end, better check and see if the promises in the NT have ended, they were spoken of as being forever too.)
There is much in the Sinai covenant that has ended due to the fact that there is no temple (but will again be in effect when the temple is rebuilt, see Ezek's Temple chapters). And also due to the fact that not all of God's people are in the land, but will once again when all are present.
A covenant can be made and even have an administrator even before it comes into effect? That is done even today. A very simple example: you write a will with monies to go to your children's college education and to help them get started financially in their adulthood, they are provided for in one way when they come of age and another way at your death. You have an accountant that manages these funds with investments. It is a covenant made with and for your children, it is being administered and maintained but your children are still young and you are still alive therefore it is not completely yet in effect. That is where we are at in God's covenant thru Messiah.

I'm going back to just lurking.

However, just as in all covenants, there can also a closing date. The seed came. And the Abrahamic covenenat, was not the Mosaic, and scripture shows the one that was to last, was before, and after the temporary Mosaic covenent. The seed came, it says until.


Galatians 3:19 Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary.

 

[Frogster]

no only that rabbit hunter, but it says a new cov, not like i made in the past, so whether abe or jer, the old is gone. Paul did not want judaism for his churches, as per gal 2;18. Good post!

 

[from scratch]

Just jumping in with this, some food for thought only.
First, please remember 1 Sam. 15:29, Mal. 3:16, and Heb. 13:8 when claiming something was abolished, also, Mat. 5:19-22.
Second, what covenant you ask? The original covenant has never been abrogated. Hashem said these words would stand forever. Forever hasn't ended yet. In fact, there is no end to forever. (And if there is an end, better check and see if the promises in the NT have ended, they were spoken of as being forever too.)
There is much in the Sinai covenant that has ended due to the fact that there is no temple (but will again be in effect when the temple is rebuilt, see Ezek's Temple chapters). And also due to the fact that not all of God's people are in the land, but will once again when all are present.
A covenant can be made and even have an administrator even before it comes into effect? That is done even today. A very simple example: you write a will with monies to go to your children's college education and to help them get started financially in their adulthood, they are provided for in one way when they come of age and another way at your death. You have an accountant that manages these funds with investments. It is a covenant made with and for your children, it is being administered and maintained but your children are still young and you are still alive therefore it is not completely yet in effect. That is where we are at in God's covenant thru Messiah.

I'm going back to just lurking.

Welcome to our little chat or what ever you wish to call it. Interesting post you have there. I hope you will participate but can live with you lurking.

Interesting Scripture references. Did you mean to use Mal 3:6 instead of 16? That would be more in line with Heb 13:8. Yes I understand what you're saying with those Scriptures. Both Mal 3:6 and Heb 13:8 have to do with character and not the changing of the law. Do you remember Isa 28:10? - For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: This says to me that there is change. If you pay real close attention as the redemption story unfolds from the Garden on at least through the Cross you will see progression which is change. And one has to admit that there is change when considering Gal 3:19 - Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. Was added yells change. Till provides for a period of time.

We haven't considered Jer 31:31-34 or Hosea 2:11 yet. Here is Jer 31:31-34 - 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:32Not 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:33But 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.34And 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.

One should pay real close attention to the highlighted material. Make means to cut as in making a fresh stone. New means not existing prior. It doesn't mean refresh. One can see this even more clear on examining the Heb 8 quote in Greek. The word used is kainos and not neos. There can be no mistake like with chadash and chadash - one a noun and the other a verb. I give read and read as examples and if you wish to get into phonics I also present reed and red. Chadash and chadash is the same kind of nuisance.

Now we must also consider the testimony of God aka Jesus in the Gospels. They record 3 times that Jesus said this My blood of the new testament/(covenant). What new covenant is Jesus talking about, if it isn't the one Jeremiah talks about? I haven't found another new covenant.

Consider Hosea 2:11. It very plainly gives a list and says that the (weekly) Sabbath will cease. Here is the verse from the Tanach, Stone Ed - I will terminate her ever rejoicing, her festival, her New Moon, her Sabbath and her every appointed season. Tanach, Stone ed. If it is to be reinstated show the Scripture. NTL the point I'm making is change.

Everlasting is interesting. It means different thing in context. Consider the trash dump outside Jerusalem. Its fire is said to be everlasting. What does that mean? Hmmm! At the time it was spoken no Jew had ever seen its fire die out. This would be considered everlasting. And in that sense both eternal life and death will be everlasting. Those in either will never see life or death to stop. It is not within the scope of this thread to discuss all the everlasting stuff. But I will say that the Jew/Isrealite is not out of the picture yet as Romans states. And no they haven't been replaced. Your presentation of everlasting spread doubt and unbelief showing a misunderstanding.

I think that all the Jews will never be in the state of Isreal unless Isreal encompasses the globe. It is said there are more Jews in NYC than Isreal. I don't know if that is a fact or not. Such a statement dosen''t consider other places like San Fransico also a Jewish center or other places around the world. So I see a real impossiblity or there is going to be a mass death of Jews that will make the holocaust insignificant. What does that do to your hope? No I'm not out to destroy hope.

Ah yes let us not forget the death of the testor to show the NC is in fact the current covenant. That happened at the Cross where Jesus said It is finished. This is also where and when the NC was sealed with blood.

 

[JohnRabbit]

So are you contending that the actions of the COI is the reason for the levitical law concerning sacrifice and that they weren't in the original plan of God? So if I read you correctly you're saying that these other laws came through angels and not from God. If this is so what do phrases like the Lord called to Moses...speak to the COI, the Lord said unto Moses, Thus thou shalt say unto the COI, ...and the Lord spake unto me, etc, mean? These phrases are all over the Torah/Pentateuch. Normally you refer to angels as messengers. I take it that Moses performed this office and task in the Pentateuch. Ah but it says angels (plural). Well from your stand point I guess that we would conclude that the law came through multiple sources, that is other than Moses. If you wish to to pursue that; it is your burden of proof, not mine. No proof no deal. Again are you implying that these transgressions are only the COI's? I also would like you to explain how either Eph 3:19 or Rom 4:15 specify ceremonial laws being added. I don't find any division of law in those verses or any around them.Whoops. Seems to contradict your personal statement just before the quoted verses.Which commandments? The 10? How? They haven't been issued yet. I considered placing this stament after the followin in your post, but the 10 aaren't mentioned in those references either. So do we have a definitions problem or just and ID problem?Yeah I'm hanging in there. But I hope that you will deal with what I brought up at some point. So you can still can continue stating your case and then counter these points.

the problem seems to be in the reading!

do you not make any difference between what God wrote and what moses wrote as it pertains to the law given at sinai?

 

[from scratch]

the problem seems to be in the reading!

do you not make any difference between what God wrote and what moses wrote as it pertains to the law given at sinai?

My question is how do you know that Moses isn't lying? After all you can't produce the stones. The point is that you only know about the 10 commandments via the writings of Moses. Is Moses lying when he wrote things like say unto the COI as a quote from God Himself? We are talking about the source, aren't we?

 

[Frogster]

the problem seems to be in the reading!

do you not make any difference between what God wrote and what moses wrote as it pertains to the law given at sinai?

gal 3;10 says cursed about ALL things in the book of the law.

10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.”

please do not say, that Christ took the curse of the law, verse 13, because of just ceremonial, like that did not also mean the 10

Like Jesus took the curse for bad haircuts.

hey, by the way, a sorcerer moved into town, should we put her to death?

Exodus 22:18 “You shall not permit a sorceress to live.

 

[from scratch]

gal 3;10 says cursed about ALL things in the book of the law.

10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.”

please do not say, that Christ took the curse of the law, verse 13, because of just ceremonial, like that did not also mean the 10

Like Jesus took the curse for bad haircuts.

hey, by the way, a sorcerer moved into town, should we put her to death?

Exodus 22:18 “You shall not permit a sorceress to live.

Why yes sir celebrating the removal of sin is certianly againist our wishes, isn't it? I thought that meant against things we wanted to do when it said contrary to us. Guess I was wrong so throw out the party. I just can't seem to get a hold of the fact that they only wish to throw out the beneficial part of the law.

 

[yedida]

gal 3;10 says cursed about ALL things in the book of the law.

10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.”

please do not say, that Christ took the curse of the law, verse 13, because of just ceremonial, like that did not also mean the 10

Like Jesus took the curse for bad haircuts.

hey, by the way, a sorcerer moved into town, should we put her to death?

Exodus 22:18 “You shall not permit a sorceress to live.

To answer your last question: if you believe in a millennial reign of Jesus on this earth, yes, at that time the sorcerer will be judged by Torah. It is not dead, abolished, nailed to the cross, or made null and void - but what was civil punishment while Israel was under the rule of God alone could not continue once they were under other authority, and it can't be reinstituted now because at this time there is no priesthood nor a temple.

I'd like to ask you one question, I've no intention of getting into a big debate or discussion over this. I'm just curious how you reconcile Jesus' statement in Matt 5:17-19 against what you think Gal 3:10 is saying. If you think those two passages are at odds with each other, to whom do you give greater authority and why.

 

[from scratch]

To answer your last question: if you believe in a millennial reign of Jesus on this earth, yes, at that time the sorcerer will be judged by Torah. It is not dead, abolished, nailed to the cross, or made null and void - but what was civil punishment while Israel was under the rule of God alone could not continue once they were under other authority, and it can't be reinstituted now because at this time there is no priesthood nor a temple.

First the law doesn't apply to the Christian - I Tim 1:9, 10. If you say the law applies to you then according to my cited reference you must then be declaring yourself to be lawless thus unredeemed. Please have it your way this is bugger king after all.

I'd like to ask you one question, I've no intention of getting into a big debate or discussion over this. I'm just curious how you reconcile Jesus' statement in Matt 5:17-19 against what you think Gal 3:10 is saying. If you think those two passages are at odds with each other, to whom do you give greater authority and why.

I would ask what do you think about LK 24:44. Your explaination might prove interesting.

 

[yedida]

First the law doesn't apply to the Christian - I Tim 1:9, 10. If you say the law applies to you then according to my cited reference you must then be declaring yourself to be lawless thus unredeemed. Please have it your way this is bugger king after all.I would ask what do you think about LK 24:44. Your explaination might prove interesting.

It's quite audacious that you would ask me a question while not answering the one posed to you.
I asked you a simple, non-accusing question. And I also said I would not be getting into a discussion with you. You chose to not answer, that's fine (and what I expected).
I, too, choose to decline answering. Have a good weekend.

P.S.
Just noticed you are not the one to whom I posed the question. Sorry, I mixed you two up. But I truly am not wanting to get into a discussion in here on this. I just had a question I would like to hear answered.
Still, have a good weekend.

P.P.S.
Guess I won't be rude and not answer your question. Although I have no idea what you expect to hear about the passage. There is nothing hidden or mysterious about it. Just simply Yeshua stating a simple fact that the Torah, the Prophets and even the Writings were all referring to Him and His work He had done. Sorry, no big drum rolls required on this one.

 

[from scratch]

It's quite audacious that you would ask me a question while not answering the one posed to you.
I asked you a simple, non-accusing question. And I also said I would not be getting into a discussion with you. You chose to not answer, that's fine (and what I expected).
I, too, choose to decline answering. Have a good weekend.

P.S.
Just noticed you are not the one to whom I posed the question. Sorry, I mixed you two up. But I truly am not wanting to get into a discussion in here on this. I just had a question I would like to hear answered.
Still, have a good weekend.

P.P.S.
Guess I won't be rude and not answer your question. Although I have no idea what you expect to hear about the passage. There is nothing hidden or mysterious about it. Just simply Yeshua stating a simple fact that the Torah, the Prophets and even the Writings were all referring to Him and His work He had done. Sorry, no big drum rolls required on this one.

You know it doesn't matter if I make statements or ask questions the softer approach folks are irritated either way. I answered you question with LK 24:44 stated as a question. This reference deals with what must be fulfilled. I'm curious, did you bother looking it up? You didn't even bother to ask what LK 24:44 has to do with Mat 5:17-19. Aren't you curious? Your point is the law is still in force. I say no way for the Christian. I also provide Hebrews 7:12 that states very plainly there is of necessity a change of the law. What does James 2:10 say? If you broke one part of the law you broke all of the law. To a Jew/Isrealite the law is a single undivisible unit. Paul also makes this claim twice in Gal - once in 3:10 and again in 5:3, 4.

If you don't want to play I understand. But then don't ask questions either. That is discussion and playing by pitching the ball to the batter and asking them to swing. At least play for the pitch you threw.

 

[yedida]

You know it doesn't matter if I make statements or ask questions the softer approach folks are irritated either way. I answered you question with LK 24:44 stated as a question. This reference deals with what must be fulfilled. I'm curious, did you bother looking it up? You didn't even bother to ask what LK 24:44 has to do with Mat 5:17-19. Aren't you curious? Your point is the law is still in force. I say no way for the Christian. I also provide Hebrews 7:12 that states very plainly there is of necessity a change of the law. What does James 2:10 say? If you broke one part of the law you broke all of the law. To a Jew/Isrealite the law is a single undivisible unit. Paul also makes this claim twice in Gal - once in 3:10 and again in 5:3, 4.

If you don't want to play I understand. But then don't ask questions either. That is discussion and playing by pitching the ball to the batter and asking them to swing. At least play for the pitch you threw.

You're right, I didn't make any connection between the two passages, not all has yet been fulfilled, and in my vocabulary forever means forever.
I was and still am curious how such opposing statements are reconciled in your mind (or rather, the poster to whom I originally asked).
We don't agree but I have been where you are at, and that's why I asked, because I came to that place where I had to figure out how to reconcile the scriptures as a whole and that's why I'm of the opinion I hold now. Where I'm standing there are no inconsistancies nor oppositions in scripture (at least not in this particular area).
Have a wonderful Sunday.

 

[from scratch]

You're right, I didn't make any connection between the two passages, not all has yet been fulfilled, and in my vocabulary forever means forever.
I was and still am curious how such opposing statements are reconciled in your mind (or rather, the poster to whom I originally asked).
We don't agree but I have been where you are at, and that's why I asked, because I came to that place where I had to figure out how to reconcile the scriptures as a whole and that's why I'm of the opinion I hold now. Where I'm standing there are no inconsistancies nor oppositions in scripture (at least not in this particular area).
Have a wonderful Sunday.

So I think that you didn't even read LK 24:44 It seems you really didn't want an answer to your proof text. So here it is: And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning Me.

I have had folks reject this in hand until I point out the highlighted words.

I think it is great that you have reconciled the scriptures to arrive at your current position. Does that mean you throw out what you don't like? I don't understand how you reconcile just the few Scriptures I have referenced or quoted. I'm very interestend in how you reconcile things like Hebrews 7:12 with the law. I'm also interested in how you do this with a number of other Scriptures like Romans 6:14, 15; 7:4; 10:4; Gal 4:30; 5:4. Need more? Just curious is all. I also wouldn't mind an explianation of how you reconciled them.