Luke 16: A response to an article.

[P1LGR1M]

Two places in Hebrews the ''New Mediator vs New Covenant'' are mentioned.
One of them employs ''kainos'' and the other employs ''neos'' ~

Hebrews 12:24 KJV
24. And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

First:

Two places in Hebrews the ''New Mediator vs New Covenant'' are mentioned.

It is very unfortunate you have only been able to recognize mention of the New Covenant in Hebrews...twice. This also, coupled with your commentary, reveals that you have not actually spent much time in Hebrews.

Secondly: I guess in your mind this makes sense, and seems a good answer, but it is a non-answer, my friend. If you disregard the fact that this is translated to spek of Christ as the Mediator and the Covenant as new, then you destroy the thrust of Hebrews, which an exhortation to those brought up under the First Covenant to embrace Christ and the New Covenant.

The New Covenant is always ''KAINOS''-RENEWED
Hebrews 12:24 employs ''NEOS''-NEW and the order is catastrophically altered:

Hebrews 12:24 TUA (Transliterated Unaccented Bible)
24. kai diathekes neas Mesite Iesou kai haimati rantismou kreitton lalounti para tonHabel.
24. And the covenant of a New Mediator Yeshua; and to the blood of sprinkling that speaketh more noble things than that of Abel.

"Catastrophically altered?" lol

This is very interesting, however, when we consider the meaning of neos we understand why this is usually translated to refer to the Covenant, not the Mediator. This would deny the eternality of the Son, my friend.

Just to put this in perhaps a different perspective for you, to take this to refer to Christ would establish the corllary which would be that Abel was a mediator.

As I said before, there is no precedent for Christ being mediator, and the primary error people make is to think that Christ's Priesthood follows the example of Melchisedec, rather than that Melchisedec's priesthood was a picture, a parable, so to speak, of the Great High Priest that was foretold. THis is a familiar theme in Hebrews as well, the Law being the primary example, the picture, of what God would do in the lives of men.

I reiterate: Christ is not the "new mediator," He is the ONLY Mediator. There is not another sitting on an equal basis with Christ in His redemptive role, there are only those that are picture prophecies of Christ, Melchisedec and the Levitical Priesthood given in Hebrews to illustrate this.

As for ''leprosy'' the ''cure'' is found in Leviticus 14 for both the man and his house. As for the ''house'' it must first be emptied of the contents so that what is inside not be made unclean. This ''emptying out'' of the house I do believe the rapturites call the famous Rapture, (Paulos called it being ''harpazo-caught up'' to the third heaven and Paradise).

Leviticus 14:33-45 KJV
33. And the Lord spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying,
34. When ye be come into the land of Canaan, which I give to you for a possession, and I put the plague of leprosy in a house of the land of your possession;
35. And he that owneth the house shall come and tell the priest, saying, It seemeth to me there is as it were a plague in the house:
36. Then the priest shall command that they empty the house, before the priest go into it to see the plague, that all that is in the house be not made unclean: and afterward the priest shall go in to see the house:
37. And he shall look on the plague, and, behold, if the plague be in the walls of the house with hollow strakes, greenish or reddish, which in sight are lower than the wall;
38. Then the priest shall go out of the house to the door of the house, and shut up the house seven days:
39. And the priest shall come again the seventh day, and shall look: and, behold, if the plague be spread in the walls of the house;
40. Then the priest shall command that they take away the stones in which the plague is, and they shall cast them into an unclean place without the city:
41. And he shall cause the house to be scraped within round about, and they shall pour out the dust that they scrape off without the city into an unclean place:
42. And they shall take other stones, and put them in the place of those stones; and he shall take other morter, and shall plaister the house.
43. And if the plague come again, and break out in the house, after that he hath taken away the stones, and after he hath scraped the house, and after it is plaistered;
44. Then the priest shall come and look, and, behold, if the plague be spread in the house, it is a fretting leprosy in the house; it is unclean.
45. And he shall break down the house, the stones of it, and the timber thereof, and all the morter of the house; and he shall carry them forth out of the city into an unclean place.

Read it again, timewerx, only the house is in view. Only by spiritualizing the text can we make this other than what it is: cleansing of an abode. There is no mention of the owner that had the disease and there is no mention of the diseaased being healed.

Indeed there was a day, when long after I had entered into the Beautiful Land, that I did come unto the Great High Priest, (order of Melchizedek) and said unto him: ''It seemeth to me there is as it were a plague in the house''… And oh if only I had known at the time what would come of this! And at that time the High Priest gave me a little scroll and commanded me to eat all of it until the appointed time when he would come and empty out my house to perform the purging and atonement ceremony.

If there is a point to this, you will have to be more specific.

Zechariah 5:1-4 KJV
1. Then I turned, and lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and behold a flying roll.
2. And he said unto me, What seest thou? And I answered, I see a flying roll; the length thereof is twenty cubits, and the breadth thereof ten cubits.
3. Then said he unto me, This is the curse that goeth forth over the face of the whole earth: for every one that stealeth shall be cut off as on this side according to it; and every one that sweareth shall be cut off as on that side according to it.
4. I will bring it forth, saith the Lord of hosts, and it shall enter into the house of the thief, and into the house of him that sweareth falsely by my name: and it shall remain in the midst of his house, and shall consume it with the timber thereof and the stones thereof.





My entire ''house'' had to be scrapped but the contents inside were ''saved'' …

According to the New Covenant standard, my friend, we become a part of the House of Christ, not an individual house. We are living stones which make up the Temple of God.

My advice? Stop building your house. It a certainty that if you deprive yourself of possessions in an attempt to make yourself feel saved you will doubtless have little opportunity to help those that you profess to endeavor to help. If you become a missionary, there will be a need for money. You will be in all liklehood dependant upon offerings of believers who believe in missionaries and the work they do. Will you go unto them and say, "Be ye warmed and filled," and not be able to help them? And if you reject the money of those you condemn so easily, will you follow Paul's example and support yourself through work?

But this will bring conflict as well, as you will, according to your doctrine...make yourself one that seeks after riches.

I would encourage you, timewerx, to give attention to doctrine. Not that of your own beliefs, but that which men that were given to establish the pattern taught.

I cannot say that I am supportive of all missionary efforts, because there will be those that corrupt the nature of the true missionary by mingling the Gospel of Christ with their own gospel.

You can, however, prepare yourself for the field, whatever field that may be, by giving attention to the doctrine found in scripture, doctrine that is sound and balanced, which establishes sound practice.

God bless.

Two places in Hebrews the ''New Mediator vs New Covenant'' are mentioned.
One of them employs ''kainos'' and the other employs ''neos'' ~

Hebrews 12:24 KJV
24. And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

The New Covenant is always ''KAINOS''-RENEWED
Hebrews 12:24 employs ''NEOS''-NEW and the order is catastrophically altered:

Hebrews 12:24 TUA (Transliterated Unaccented Bible)
24. kai diathekes neas Mesite Iesou kai haimati rantismou kreitton lalounti para tonHabel.
24. And the covenant of a New Mediator Yeshua; and to the blood of sprinkling that speaketh more noble things than that of Abel.

As for ''leprosy'' the ''cure'' is found in Leviticus 14 for both the man and his house. As for the ''house'' it must first be emptied of the contents so that what is inside not be made unclean. This ''emptying out'' of the house I do believe the rapturites call the famous Rapture, (Paulos called it being ''harpazo-caught up'' to the third heaven and Paradise).

Leviticus 14:33-45 KJV
33. And the Lord spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying,
34. When ye be come into the land of Canaan, which I give to you for a possession, and I put the plague of leprosy in a house of the land of your possession;
35. And he that owneth the house shall come and tell the priest, saying, It seemeth to me there is as it were a plague in the house:
36. Then the priest shall command that they empty the house, before the priest go into it to see the plague, that all that is in the house be not made unclean: and afterward the priest shall go in to see the house:
37. And he shall look on the plague, and, behold, if the plague be in the walls of the house with hollow strakes, greenish or reddish, which in sight are lower than the wall;
38. Then the priest shall go out of the house to the door of the house, and shut up the house seven days:
39. And the priest shall come again the seventh day, and shall look: and, behold, if the plague be spread in the walls of the house;
40. Then the priest shall command that they take away the stones in which the plague is, and they shall cast them into an unclean place without the city:
41. And he shall cause the house to be scraped within round about, and they shall pour out the dust that they scrape off without the city into an unclean place:
42. And they shall take other stones, and put them in the place of those stones; and he shall take other morter, and shall plaister the house.
43. And if the plague come again, and break out in the house, after that he hath taken away the stones, and after he hath scraped the house, and after it is plaistered;
44. Then the priest shall come and look, and, behold, if the plague be spread in the house, it is a fretting leprosy in the house; it is unclean.
45. And he shall break down the house, the stones of it, and the timber thereof, and all the morter of the house; and he shall carry them forth out of the city into an unclean place.

Indeed there was a day, when long after I had entered into the Beautiful Land, that I did come unto the Great High Priest, (order of Melchizedek) and said unto him: ''It seemeth to me there is as it were a plague in the house''… And oh if only I had known at the time what would come of this! And at that time the High Priest gave me a little scroll and commanded me to eat all of it until the appointed time when he would come and empty out my house to perform the purging and atonement ceremony.

Zechariah 5:1-4 KJV
1. Then I turned, and lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and behold a flying roll.
2. And he said unto me, What seest thou? And I answered, I see a flying roll; the length thereof is twenty cubits, and the breadth thereof ten cubits.
3. Then said he unto me, This is the curse that goeth forth over the face of the whole earth: for every one that stealeth shall be cut off as on this side according to it; and every one that sweareth shall be cut off as on that side according to it.
4. I will bring it forth, saith the Lord of hosts, and it shall enter into the house of the thief, and into the house of him that sweareth falsely by my name: and it shall remain in the midst of his house, and shall consume it with the timber thereof and the stones thereof.

My entire ''house'' had to be scrapped but the contents inside were ''saved'' …

 

[P1LGR1M]

Thank you for your kind greeting, but as with Clare, Pilgrim, I think we must agree to differ. I will comment, however on two of your points.

You will, in fact, find that throughout the Old Testament, as well as the New (again, the Magnificat), the rich man is referred to in apposition to the wicked man, and as violent and deceitful - the latter, noteworthy, since it ultimately refers to economic oppression - Mr Big doesn't sully his hands; the poor man, in apposition to the virtuous man, the true Israel. It crops up again and again, particularly, in the Prophets. Also, most striking is that Gospel quote of Isiah 53:9 concerning Christ's burial. And bear in mind that Joseph of Aramethea was the generous donor of the tomb, and a disciple.

[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]"He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth." [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]However, somehow Americans have managed to re-interpet it. Not even scripture is holy in the eyes of American capitalism. [/FONT]

Paul, there is a political board on this forum that I think will suit you better. Your anti-American sentiment is not the product of bible study, nor is it representative of scripture's teaching that there is now no more Jew nor Greek, American nor Scottish.

We see a number of rich men in scripture which were not only blessed of God, but faithful to God. Abraham was called the friend of God. He was rich. His righteousness had nothing to do with his possessions.

I am saddened by your political thrust.

God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

Most Christians don't understand those verses properly. Jesus is actually condemning 'worldly shrewdness', especially in applying shrewdness to do worldly affairs.

Children of the light should be less shrewd than the children of the world:

Luke 16:8

8 “The master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly. For the people of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own kind than are the people of the light.

We go on to Luke 16:10-12 - handling property that isn't yours. Most Christians don't understand this. They it has something to do with succeeding in business or career, and living in a nice comfortable house, puttering around in a nice car. Those Christians will not inherit even one micrometer square property in Heaven!

To prove most Christians are in the wrong context, those verses are immediately followed by:

Luke 16:13

“No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.

The entire context of those verses is actually condemnation of accumulation of wealth and would condemn most Christians by their lifestyles.



I agree with you.

I personally call it the 'satanic interpretation of the bible'

Few others here would agree with you as well. Unfortunately, only few think that way.

Most Christians in reality serve Mammon. Even an idiot can figure it out. Doesn't mean we're idiots!



Let's be honest and frank. MOst Christians love the dishonest steward too.

Even today, the Parables of Jesus still catches people off guard!

If you read the whole Luke 16, not just the parable, you can see the context is not about, in fact condemning shrewdness in worldly affairs, condemns keeping wealth to yourself.

Most Christians understand Luke 16 the other way, which makes the shrewd manager good, and succeeding in worldly trade/investments, favorable to God. They make Luke 16:13 the 'joke verse' and treat is as not absolute.

Like duh! Even an idiot can figure that out. Even an idiot knows a monkey will stick its hand a jar full of cookies than an empty jar....

So you see, it's a satanic interpretation of the bible with how most christians do it... The message of Jesus is clear but most will twist it to favor greed and acquisition of wealth. Most Christians obviously, don't use the word greed, more like blessings, rewards, promises, capitalism.

Do you also consider America as "the great satan?"

 

[Clare73]

Thank you for your kind greeting, but as with Clare, Pilgrim, I think we must agree to differ. I will comment, however on two of your points.

You will, in fact, find that throughout the Old Testament, as well as the New (again, the Magnificat), the rich man is referred to in apposition to the wicked man, and as violent and deceitful - the latter, noteworthy, since it ultimately refers to economic oppression - Mr Big doesn't sully his hands; the poor man, in apposition to the virtuous man, the true Israel. It crops up again and again, particularly, in the Prophets. Also, most striking is that Gospel quote of Isiah 53:9 concerning Christ's burial. And bear in mind that Joseph of Aramethea was the generous donor of the tomb, and a disciple.

[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]"He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth." [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]However, somehow Americans have managed to re-interpet it. Not even scripture is holy in the eyes of American capitalism. [/FONT]

Seems like you are interpreting Scripture in terms of your political views.

In the faith,
Clare

 

[Clare73]

Most Christians don't understand those verses properly.

Are you sure about that?

Jesus is actually condemning 'worldly shrewdness', especially in applying shrewdness to do worldly affairs.

He is commending shrewdness in use of worldly weath for future eternal benefit.

Children of the light should be less shrewd than the children of the world:

Luke 16:8

8 “The master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly. For the people of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own kind than are the people of the light.

And Jesus' point is that we should use worldly wealth wisely to gain future eternal benefit.

In no way do we find a condemnation of wealth in the parable, but rather exhortation to use it wisely for eternal benefit.

In the faith,
Clare

 

[daq]

First:

It is very unfortunate you have only been able to recognize mention of the New Covenant in Hebrews...twice. This also, coupled with your commentary, reveals that you have not actually spent much time in Hebrews.

Secondly: I guess in your mind this makes sense, and seems a good answer, but it is a non-answer, my friend. If you disregard the fact that this is translated to spek of Christ as the Mediator and the Covenant as new, then you destroy the thrust of Hebrews, which an exhortation to those brought up under the First Covenant to embrace Christ and the New Covenant.

You misunderstood just about everything. As far as the ''New Mediator vs New Covenant'' controversy do you not understand what ''VS'' means? There are ONLY two passages in Hebrews where this controversy is found. Again, one of them employs KAINOS-NEW and the other employs NEOS-NEW. The Kainos-New Covenant is NEVER spoken of anywhere as a NEOS-NEW Covenant.

Hebrews 9:15 KJV
15. And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

Hebrews 9:15 TUA
15. Kai dia touto diathekes kaines mesites estin,hopos thanatou genomenou eis apolutrosin ton epi teprote diatheke parabaseon ten epangelian labosin hoikeklemenoi tes aioniou kleronomias.

''Kai dia touto diathekes kaines mesites estin'' …
''And by this he is the mediator of the kainos-new Covenant'' …

Hebrews 12:24 KJV
24. And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

Hebrews 12:24 TUA
24. kai diathekes neas Mesite Iesou kai haimati rantismou kreitton lalounti para tonHabel.

''Kai diathekes neas Mesite Iesou'' …
''And the Covenant of the neos-new Mediator Yeshua'' ...

 

[Clare73]

Two places in Hebrews the ''New Mediator vs New Covenant'' are mentioned.
One of them employs ''kainos'' and the other employs ''neos'' ~

First:

It is very unfortunate you have only been able to recognize mention of the New Covenant in Hebrews...twice. This also, coupled with your commentary, reveals that you have not actually spent much time in Hebrews.

Secondly: I guess in your mind this makes sense, and seems a good answer, but it is a non-answer, my friend. If you disregard the fact that this is translated to spek of Christ as the Mediator and the Covenant as new, then you destroy the thrust of Hebrews, which an exhortation to those brought up under the First Covenant to embrace Christ and the New Covenant.

<skip>

Read it again, timewerx, only the house is in view. Only by spiritualizing the text can we make this other than what it is: cleansing of an abode. There is no mention of the owner that had the disease and there is no mention of the diseaased being healed.

Agreed.

The "disease" being dealt with here is not in the owner but in the house.
It would be some form of mildew, etc.

These prescriptions were for cleansing of an infested house, not a person.

My advice? Stop building your house. It a certainty that if you deprive yourself of possessions in an attempt to make yourself feel saved you will doubtless have little opportunity to help those that you profess to endeavor to help. If you become a missionary, there will be a need for money. You will be in all liklehood dependant upon offerings of believers who believe in missionaries and the work they do. Will you go unto them and say, "Be ye warmed and filled," and not be able to help them? And if you reject the money of those you condemn so easily, will you follow Paul's example and support yourself through work?

But this will bring conflict as well, as you will, according to your doctrine...make yourself one that seeks after riches.

I would encourage you, timewerx, to give attention to doctrine. Not that of your own beliefs, but that which men that were given to establish the pattern taught.

You can, however, prepare yourself for the field, whatever field that may be, by giving attention to the doctrine found in scripture, doctrine that is sound and balanced, which establishes sound practice.

God bless.

 

[daq]

Agreed.

The "disease" being dealt with here is not in the owner but in the house.
It would be some form of mildew, etc.

These prescriptions were for cleansing of an infested house.

Too bad no one here seems to believe the teachings of Yeshua when he clearly tells us that the man is in charge of his house; like a porter who watches the door, or like a treasure in an earthen vessel.

Luke 11:24-26 KJV
24. When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest; and finding none, he saith, I will return unto my house whence I came out.
25. And when he cometh, he findeth it swept and garnished.
26. Then goeth he, and taketh to him seven other spirits more wicked than himself; and they enter in, and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first.

Oh well, let the children eat, and drink, and rise up to play ...
Perhaps they simply have to find out the hard way on their own ...

 

[he-man]

Too bad no one here seems to believe the teachings of Yeshua when he clearly tells us that the man is in charge of his house; like a porter who watches the door, or like a treasure in an earthen vessel.

Luke 11:24-26 KJV
24. When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest; and finding none, he saith, I will return unto my house whence I came out.
25. And when he cometh, he findeth it swept and garnished.
26. Then goeth he, and taketh to him seven other spirits more wicked than himself; and they enter in, and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first.

Oh well, let the children eat, and drink, and rise up to play ...
Perhaps they simply have to find out the hard way on their own ...

The slanderers are many as Judas well knew.

Psa 41:8 A word of Belial is poured on him; and now that he is laid down, he will rise up no more.

 

[timewerx]

In no way do we find a condemnation of wealth in the parable, but rather exhortation to use it wisely for eternal benefit.

In the faith,
Clare

Did I condemn wealth? I suggest you read my post again and save yourself the embarrassment

I only said "condemnation of accumulation of wealth and keeping it to yourself"

It doesn't automatically mean that I condemn wealth. I would even say that wealth is good but only for giving away to the poor and for funding missions. Wealth becomes bad if you use it to buy but not limited to nice house, nice car, hobbies, etc. Regardless of your income... ..Which only means, the higher your income, the higher the % you give. In the case of the rich man, it's about 100% That's why he went home sad

And Jesus' point is that we should use worldly wealth wisely to gain future eternal benefit.

You got this correctly if worldly wealth is used for the poor and for missions. It is not to be saved in banks, not to be used to buy things you don't really need/will not kill you if you didn't get it (suicide, not considered).

To give much of the wealth to the poor that you end up poor yourself that is what you need to do to have treasure in heaven.

I believe you are referring to Luke 16:8, then it's repeated on Mark 10:21. In both verses, you see worldly wealth being spent on other people, not on ourselves.

There's not one teaching in the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) that favors accumulation/keeping/saving of wealth. However, the message about giving it all away is very clear (no sarcasms pls!).

The message on the gospels on the treatment of wealth is very clear - give it away that you might enter the Kingdom of God(it's not the only requirement but it's a BIG requirement, BIG cost!), keep it and you die.

So easy, so clear, even a caveman can understand the Gospel on the subject of wealth. The fact that many intelligent people fail to realize that, I smell evil at work in their brains!

 

[Clare73]

Two places in Hebrews the ''New Mediator vs New Covenant'' are mentioned.
One of them employs ''kainos'' and the other employs ''neos'' ~

Hebrews 12:24 KJV
24. And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

The New Covenant is always ''KAINOS''-RENEWED
Hebrews 12:24 employs ''NEOS''-NEW and the order is catastrophically altered:

Hebrews 12:24 TUA (Transliterated Unaccented Bible)
24. kai diathekes neas Mesite Iesou kai haimati rantismou kreitton lalounti para tonHabel.
24. And the covenant of a New Mediator Yeshua; and to the blood of sprinkling that speaketh more noble things than that of Abel.

Jesus is the new Mediator of God's (NT) covenant with his people in contrast to Moses, the old mediator of God's (Sinaitic) covenant with his people.

His mediatorship is not related to Melchizedek.
Melchizedek is the order of his High Priesthood.

In the faith,
Clare

 

[daq]

Jesus is the new Mediator of God's (NT) covenant with his people in contrast to Moses, the old mediator of God's (Sinaitic) covenant with his people.

His mediatorship is not related to Melchizedek.
Melchizedek is the order of his High Priesthood.

In the faith,
Clare

You are certainly much closer to the truth with this statement. However, it appears you may not fully understand that the High Priest was ALWAYS the mediator of the Covenant. Thus the writer of Hebrews makes it clear that the old ''covenant with death'' needed to be ''disannulled'' as foretold in Isaiah 28. How did they rule over the people? From one priest to the next, by succession, through death. Why? Because of the weakness of the flesh going foreward; for those high priests kept ''waxing old, dying, and decaying'' and constantly needing replacement by the next in line. And for the same reason YHWH gave not that portion of the Covenant by oath showing that it was to be replaced with the NEOS-NEW ETERNAL MEDIATOR and High Priest Yeshua, by the order of Melchizedek, having neither beginning of days nor end of life.

 

[Clare73]

Too bad no one here seems to believe the teachings of Yeshua when he clearly tells us that the
man is in charge of his house; like a porter who watches the door, or like a treasure in an earthen vessel.

Which has nothing to do with Leviticus 14 and diseased houses.

Luke 11:24-26 KJV

24. When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest; and finding none, he saith, I will return unto my house whence I came out.
25. And when he cometh, he findeth it swept and garnished.
26. Then goeth he, and taketh to him seven other spirits more wicked than himself; and they enter in, and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first.

If you want to connect regulations for diseased houses in Lev 14 to the NT, it connects to more than just Lk 11:24-26:

1) the curable "mildew" which required infected stones to be torn out and thrown away, is a picture of sin in the believer, which would be connected to Mk 9:42-50, where sin in the believer must be radically dealt with (cut off, plucked out)

2) the incurable permanent "mildew" which required the house to be torn down and removed is a picture of the permanently unclean unbeliever who is not washed in the blood of the Lamb through faith, which would be connected to Jn 3:18, 36, where God's condemnation and wrath will bring his house down.

3) the cleansing ceremony for the house being the same as for a person is a picture of "mildew" in the house being the same as sin in the heart of a person, which would be connected to your scripture above, Lk 11:24-26, where the house must not just be swept clean, but washed clean (Lev 14:51) by washing of rebirth (Tit 3:5).

Because as Lk 11:24-26 shows, swept clean is only reformation, whereas washed clean is regeneration.

Oh well, let the children eat, and drink, and rise up to play ...
Perhaps they simply have to find out the hard way on their own ...

Are you sure about that?

In the faith,
Clare

 

[Clare73]

You are certainly much closer to the truth with this statement. However, it appears you may not fully understand that the High Priest was ALWAYS the mediator of the Covenant.

Do you have a Biblical basis for that?

Because the Mediator is the one through whom God cut the covenant.
He did not cut the covenant with the priests.
Scripture does not refer to the OT priests as mediators of the covenant.

Thus the writer of Hebrews makes it clear that the old ''covenant with death'' needed to be ''disannulled'' as foretold in Isaiah 28.

The "covenant with death" would be the Mosaic Law, which was the basis of the covenant, which produced death in those under the Law because of their failure to keep it perfectly.

How did they rule over the people? From one priest to the next, by succession, through death. Why? Because of the weakness of the flesh going foreward; for those high priests kept ''waxing old, dying, and decaying'' and constantly needing replacement by the next in line. And for the same reason YHWH gave not that portion of the Covenant by oath showing that it was to be replaced with the NEOS-NEW ETERNAL MEDIATOR and High Priest Yeshua, by the order of Melchizedek, having neither beginning of days nor end of life.

That has nothing to do with the new Mediator replacing the old Mediator, Moses, with whom the two covenants were cut.

In the faith,
Clare

 

[daq]

Do you have a Biblical basis for that?

Because the Mediator is the one through whom God cut the covenant.
He did not cut the covenant with the priests.
Scripture does not refer to the OT priests as mediators of the covenant.


The "covenant with death" would be the Mosaic Law, which was the basis of the covenant, which produced death in those under the Law because of their failure to keep it perfectly.


That has nothing to do with the new Mediator replacing the old Mediator, Moses, with whom the two covenants were cut.

In the faith,
Clare

If you truly cared anything about Torah you would know that Moses was the first High Priest and Joshua the son of Nun was the next in line to succeed him. Moses was commanded to put his hands upon Joshua and commission him, blessing him, putting Joshua the son of Nun BEFORE Eleazar the son of Aaron the priest and BEFORE the congregation. Aaron the priest is nowhere called ''High Priest'' or ''Kohen Gadol'' but rather always ''Aaron the priest''. The Old Testament ''Body of Moses'' was folded into Christ in Matthew 27:51-53.

''Old Testament Saints'' ~ ''Body of Moses''
''New Testament Saints'' ~ ''Body of Yeshua''

Understand these things and perhaps you might understand Jude and his reference to the ''Body of Moses'' which was disputed throughout the wilderness journey, and indeed the entire Old Testament, including the vision of Zechariah 3 wherein the prophet saw Joshua son of Nun standing before the Mal'ak of YHWH, as High Priest, in filthy garments which were exchanged for the clean.

 

[P1LGR1M]

You misunderstood just about everything.

No, I understood what you said, however, it will not stand up.

What you should be pointing out is that I mistakenly attributed the wrong poster to the posts responded to, lol. I call this error...post-haste, lol.

As far as the ''New Mediator vs New Covenant'' controversy do you not understand what ''VS'' means?

There is no controversy. There is no "versus." It is only a controversy if one decides to interpret it in error.

There are ONLY two passages in Hebrews where this controversy is found.

There is not one passage of controversy.

Again, one of them employs KAINOS-NEW and the other employs NEOS-NEW. The Kainos-New Covenant is NEVER spoken of anywhere as a NEOS-NEW Covenant.

Sure it is...


Hebrews 12:24

King James Version (KJV)


24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.



It's funny that so many translate it this way, yet, they were all mistaken. Very curious. Do you also translate 1 Timothy 2:5 "one God (is), one also Mediator of God and of men, (the) man Christ Jesus..."

?

Hebrews 9:15 KJV
15. And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

Hebrews 9:15 TUA
15. Kai dia touto diathekes kaines mesites estin,hopos thanatou genomenou eis apolutrosin ton epi teprote diatheke parabaseon ten epangelian labosin hoikeklemenoi tes aioniou kleronomias.

''Kai dia touto diathekes kaines mesites estin'' …
''And by this he is the mediator of the kainos-new Covenant'' …

Hebrews 12:24 KJV
24. And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

Hebrews 12:24 TUA
24. kai diathekes neas Mesite Iesou kai haimati rantismou kreitton lalounti para tonHabel.

''Kai diathekes neas Mesite Iesou'' …
''And the Covenant of the neos-new Mediator Yeshua'' ...

I can see how you arrive at your conclusion, but I just don't see it, my friend. Think about what is being said. We have come to Christ, Who's sacrifice speaks better things than that of Abel.

And now, lol, let me try to answer the post you did, rather than that of timewerx. Sorry if I think this is funny, but that is three times I have made some blunders here in the last couple of days.

Both the black and the blue are mistaken: for the ''certain rich man'' is not an ''Andres-man'' but rather an ''Anthropos-man'' and as such he is akin to ''the son of perdition'' which will not be forgiven or released from the unquenchable fire.

While perhaps not the same reason, I would agree with the intent of this statement.

Therefore cut off that one from your midst: for ''Sin lieth at the door; and unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him'' ...

Luke 16:31-17:10 KJV
31. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
1. Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!
2. It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.
3. Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.
4. And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him.
5. And the apostles said unto the Lord, Increase our faith.
6. And the Lord said, If ye had faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye might say unto this sycamine tree, Be thou plucked up by the root, and be thou planted in the sea; and it should obey you.
7. But which of you, having a servant plowing or feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, Go and sit down to meat?
8. And will not rather say unto him, Make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me, till I have eaten and drunken; and afterward thou shalt eat and drink?
9. Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I trow not.
10. So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.

It might be better to provide some commentary to make your point.

1) Look at yourself in the mirror of Torah by the interpretations given through Yeshua.

Better yet, look into the New Covenant as revealed by the Lord.

2) Having faith command that evil sycamine-fig to be cast into the Sea and it shall obey.

Can you do this, my friend? I tend to view this as hyperbole, but hey, you never know, right?

3) Each of us is a porter with lesser members of his house, (Mtt.24:42-51, Mrk.13:31-37).

The difference between the Law and the New Covenant is that we are no longer servants, but children of God that are on an equal basis.

Philippians 2:3

King James Version (KJV)


3 Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.

4) Doing all things commanded count yourself an unprofitable servant such as Lazarus.

How is Lazarus counted as an unrofitable servant?

Can you try to stick to the intent of the thread? Just a little?

You say "black and blue are wrong," but nothing you have said is relevant to the article or the response.

5) Unfortunately every man has a fig(tree) and a vine even BEFORE he enters the Kingdom.

Fortunately, every born again believer is a branch in the True Vine. But I would like to see the scriptural basis for this statement.

And now, I have to go, I will check in tomorrow to see where I blundered today (I seem to be on a streak, lol)

God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

In the New Covenant, the wealthy cannot enter the Kingdom of God.

Simply...false teaching. Your misuse of the scripture to teach a works-based Gospel will have no basis in the word of God.


Your first mistake is not to recognize that the Lord did not teach the New Covenant to those He ministered to. All knowledge concerning the New Testament was veiled until it was established through His death and and the promise of God's indwelling began on the Day of Pentesost.

If you would bother to read the content of this thread, it may be that you will recognize the author's interpretive skills and devices resemble those you employ.

All who do not practice austerity is living in opposition to what Jesus teaches.

Your scripture? Would you show where the Lord teaches...

In the New Covenant, the wealthy cannot enter the Kingdom of God.

The Lord taught concerning the Kingdom, not the New Covenant. And while those that will enter the Kingdom will be under the New Covenant, specific revelation, just as knowledge concerning Atonement, was not given, even to those closest to Him.

But today, postmodernism has destroyed Christianity. Most Christians will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven for the pursuit of good life on Earth.

One cannot enter either the Kingdom which speaks of the rule and reign of Christ in the heart, or, the Millennial Kingdom...unless they are Christians, my friend.


It seems your particular gospel denies what is written and taught in scripture and teaches the Sacrifice of Christ sets people on the right track, rather than bringing them into The Way.


Modern Christendom, timewerx, does not equate to salvation. No-one not being born again...will enter either Kingdom.

The only way you can have a good life, even just survive in the standards of the world here is through exploitation of the poor and nature. There is no other way.

To use a technical term...baloney.


Christians men are, for example, commanded to work and to supply for the needs of their family.


Your gospel would have everyone sitting on a street corner with a sign.

The instruction for being godly in business practice is also taught, not just in the New Testament, but threads it's way throughout the entirety of scripture. You make a division between what is expected of man concerning righteousness in the Old and in the New, and no such division is there. Why do you think God was able to justify man before the Cross?

That's why Jesus commanded to sell possessions and give to the poor and he's commanding all of us! It's the only way to give back what you took from them!

Okay, present the scripture, and we will look at it.


What you are seeking to teach brings along the corollary that salvation is the work of man: just live poor...and your righteous.


Works-based salvation is an easily recognizable false doctrine, timewerx.

That's why Jesus referred to traders as thieves! Even if you don't own a business, you work for a thief, doesn't it make you a thief also?

Funny, but Paul was a tent-maker, Lydia a Seller of purple. Does your doctrine condemn these Christians to Hell? It would have to.

Paul taught that those that minister the word of God should have their needs supplied, though he was self-supportive...through the work he did.

The only way that changes that is you don't partake of the evil worldly system or give back to the poor most of what you've earned which is only possible through a life of austerity in everything!

You betray your doublemindedness, my friend.


Not most...all.



The Lord did not require of the rich young ruler to g"go and give most of what he owned," but...



Mark 10:21
King James Version (KJV)



21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.





Unlike you, most know better than to yank out a single teaching and try to make this a standard for all teaching.


So your most is an unbiblical standard you created because you cannot do that which was required of this man. That this is an isolated incident and not meant to be a universal pattern can be seen in the Lord's response to Zacchaeus and the soldiers:




Luke 19:8-9

King James Version (KJV)



8 And Zacchaeus stood, and said unto the Lord: Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold.


9 And Jesus said unto him, This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham.





Half...not most. Half, not all.




Luke 3:14

King James Version (KJV)



14 And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.




Hmm. Do your Job well, and don't snivel you don't make enough.

That's why Lazarus went to Heaven.

You teach an ungodly entrance to Heaven.


Lazarus is not said to go into Heaven, first. He is said to go into Abraham's Bosom. Secondly, we see that Moses and the Prophets was sufficient to keep the rich man's brethren from torment in Hades, so the implication is that Lazarus' life conformed to the word of God.


Here are some other poor people who have similar circumstances to Lazarus:



Luke 17:11-19

King James Version (KJV)



11 And it came to pass, as he went to Jerusalem, that he passed through the midst of Samaria and Galilee.


12 And as he entered into a certain village, there met him ten men that were lepers, which stood afar off:


13 And they lifted up their voices, and said, Jesus, Master, have mercy on us.


14 And when he saw them, he said unto them, Go shew yourselves unto the priests. And it came to pass, that, as they went, they were cleansed.


15 And one of them, when he saw that he was healed, turned back, and with a loud voice glorified God,

16 And fell down on his face at his feet, giving him thanks: and he was a Samaritan.


17 And Jesus answering said, Were there not ten cleansed? but where are the nine?


18 There are not found that returned to give glory to God, save this stranger.


19 And he said unto him, Arise, go thy way: thy faith hath made thee whole.



You see, timewerx, salvation is always going to revolve around faith. It is a heart issue, not a fleshly effort, as you teach.

He is certainly not guilty of exploiting others. But the rich man? Duh? No need to mention he is a sinner or died in sin.

No mention in the text about exploitation. None.


But it is typical to insert into passages that which one needs to fortify their peculiar brand of teaching.

If you are wealthy in the world, you definitely will be condemned to hell even if you're a Christian.

Then explain James' teaching concerning those that are wealthy:




James 1

King James Version (KJV)


9 Let the brother of low degree rejoice in that he is exalted:



10 But the rich, in that he is made low: because as the flower of the grass he shall pass away.





James accounts for a rich brother, and one of low degree (poor). His instruction for the rich is...do not trust in your riches. Just as the rich young ruler did.



James 2

King James Version (KJV)



1 My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.


2 For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment;


3 And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:


4 Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?


5 Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?


6 But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats?





I am sure you will, according to your doctrine, miss that the exhortation is for the members not to have respect of persons for the rich, but will see it as a condemnation of being rich. Consider that no mention is made of the individuals' circumstances themselves, but how they treat those that come into the assembly.



"The poor will you always have with you," the Lord said, not, "You will always be poor." (and do not confuse this with a health/wealth gospel, scripture teaches there will be both among the just)




7 Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?



8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:



9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.



The rich man in Luke 16 was guilty of not fulfilling the "royal law," which is quite evident in the stroy. James seeks to teach an unprejudiced love for all here.


Paul also has a word for those that are rich among the brethren:



1 Timothy 6:17

King James Version (KJV)



17 Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy;





He does not say, "Charge them that they give all their possessions to the poor," but that they do not place their faith in their riches, but...in the Living God.


The opposite is just as sinful...to trust that one is saved because he has given all he has to the poor.


And it is very sad that this is established on a poor understanding of the scriptures.


Continued...

 

[P1LGR1M]

A true Christian cannot have many or nice possessions, be saving money(enriching themselves).

We see example of God blessing certain characters in scripture, to name a few, Job; Abraham; David; Solomon.

We see the Hebrew people aquiring wealth from those of Egypt to make their journey. We see Joseph of Arimathea contributing to the placement of the Body of Christ.

A true Christian is a true Christian because of one thing: because God has made him one through the New Birth. This is done through faith, not the human efforts you teach.

You are sadly mistaken about salvation, my friend, and I hope through discussion we can examine the basis for your gospel, which I, and most will find to be another gospel, not the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

If that is what the Spirit is leading them, it is not the Holy Spirit.

The Spirit of God deals with the heart, not the pocketbook.

Stewardship of that which the Lord blesses us with is just as important as our love for our neighbor, timewerx.

Those that trust in riches betray their hearts, even as those that trust in anything they accomplish. This would include making one's self poor. How will one provide food for their family if they make themselves poor? Do you understand that being poor is not something that the majority of Americans can claim? Most have daily bread, a roof over their heads, whereas the poor of the world have...nothing.

Are you going to also teach that all who are destitute will go to Heaven because they are poor, rather than as scripture teaches having placed their faith in Jesus Christ?

That is a false gospel, my friend.

NT is many things different from OT - abolish animal sacrifice, stoning sinners to death, and sadly to many, chasing a good life is now considered evil.

You would do well to begin judgment with your own heart, timewerx, rather than condemning others. This is a typical ploy of those that are lacking in an assurance of salvation. Many convince themselves they are saved because they do this, or don't do that, showing an utter lack of understanding that it inly through faith in Christ one can be saved.


Luke 18:13-14

King James Version (KJV)


13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.

14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.



Can you recognize your self glorying, timewerx? Can you recognize your separation of the teacings of the Law from the teachings of the New Covenant create two gods with two different messages?

God saves man in the exact same manner today that He did in the Age of Law, for...


Habakkuk 2:4

King James Version (KJV)


4 Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith.



What we are taught about the New Covenant is that it is the NEW Covenant, which makes perfect, which the First Covenant could not.

It was meant to lead man to Christ, not poverty. It was meant to bring faith, not works.

Jesus said it many times...

Again, present your scriptural presentation...and a response to this response. We will look at the basis of your faith, and where your faith really lies.

The popular Christian doctrines followed suit with abolishing animal sacrifices and stoning sinners to death but why not the accumulation of wealth. Smell something fishy? Or is just serving Mammon instead of God?

The thought that one can reverse the situation and teach salvation through deprivation rather than through faith in Christ is equally erroneous.

In other words, trusting one is saved because they have nothing is just as bad as trusting one is saved because they have riches and possessions.

Both views fail to draw a balance wherein lies the truth of the Gospel of Christ, which is, man is saved by faith through grace.

So your works-based faith I will certainly challenge, as well as the basis you provide for this faith. Yours is a familiar doctrine to me, timewerx, and it one that muddies the waters of sound doctrine and practice and encourages man to place his faith inhis own works.


Continued...

 

[P1LGR1M]

If you truly cared anything about Torah you would know that Moses was the first High Priest and Joshua the son of Nun was the next in line to succeed him. Moses was commanded to put his hands upon Joshua and commission him, blessing him, putting Joshua the son of Nun BEFORE Eleazar the son of Aaron the priest and BEFORE the congregation. Aaron the priest is nowhere called ''High Priest'' or ''Kohen Gadol'' but rather always ''Aaron the priest''. The Old Testament ''Body of Moses'' was folded into Christ in Matthew 27:51-53.

''Old Testament Saints'' ~ ''Body of Moses''
''New Testament Saints'' ~ ''Body of Yeshua''

Understand these things and perhaps you might understand Jude and his reference to the ''Body of Moses'' which was disputed throughout the wilderness journey, and indeed the entire Old Testament, including the vision of Zechariah 3 wherein the prophet saw Joshua son of Nun standing before the Mal'ak of YHWH, as High Priest, in filthy garments which were exchanged for the clean.

There are some interesting thoughts in here, however, Christ is not of the Tribe of Levi.

The Old Testament ''Body of Moses'' was folded into Christ in Matthew 27:51-53.

The resurrection of Old Testament saints is the "body of Moses folded into Christ?"

Could you explain how it is these dead people were born again?

God bless.

 

[Clare73]

If you truly cared anything about Torah

Is your self-righteousness showing?

you would know that Moses was the first High Priest and Joshua the son of Nun was the next in line to succeed him.

You are in disagreement with Lev 8, where Aaron was the first high priest, ordained by Moses the Mediator and Prophet.

And nowhere in the Scriptures is Moses a priest.

Moses was commanded to put his hands upon Joshua and commission him, blessing him, putting Joshua the son of Nun BEFORE Eleazar the son of Aaron the priest and BEFORE the congregation. Aaron the priest is nowhere called ''High Priest'' or ''Kohen Gadol'' but rather always ''Aaron the priest''.

The priesthood was in the order of Aaron (Heb 7:11), his sons were also priests, making Aaron the chief priest or High Priest.
His son Eleazar succeeded him (Nu 20:26; Dt 10:6).

Aaron was the priest who entered the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement, which only the High Priest could enter.

His counterpart, in the order of Melchizedek, is the priesthood of which Christ is the High Priest.

Aaron, Melchizedek and Christ are shown to be High Priests.

The Old Testament ''Body of Moses'' was folded into Christ in Matthew 27:51-53.

''Old Testament Saints'' ~ ''Body of Moses''
''New Testament Saints'' ~ ''Body of Yeshua''

There is no such "Body of Moses" in Scripture, and it certainly hasn't been "folded" into Christ.

Understand these things and perhaps you might understand Jude and his reference to the ''Body of Moses'' which was disputed throughout the wilderness journey,

And why wasn't that dispute about where the grave of Moses was located, which no one knew (Dt 34:6)?

Jude 4-10 - "certain men (who were marked out for condemnation) whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men. . .dreamers who pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings (which is to reject authority--2Pe 10-12). But even Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare bring a slanderous accusation against him (Satan), but said, 'Let the Lord rebuke you!' Yet these men speak abusively against what they do not understand. . ."

This text has nothing to do with a Body of Moses as a counterpart to the Body of Christ.

It has to do with the godless men who denied Christ, rejected his authority, slandered celestial beings and were comparable to the unbelieving Israelites (v. 5; Nu 14:29), the sinning angels (v. 6; 2Pe 2:4) and Sodom and Gomorrah (v. 7).

and indeed the entire Old Testament, including the vision of Zechariah 3 wherein the prophet saw Joshua son of Nun standing before the Mal'ak of YHWH, as High Priest, in filthy garments which were exchanged for the clean.

Joshua also means Jesus, who was High Priest (Heb 8).

In the faith,
Clare