Messiah and the Covenant

[Clare73]

Then why did sin have dominion under law?

To show the meaning of sin.

 

[ananda]

But the principle he stated is permanent. "It's not what goes into a man's mouth that makes him unclean."That necessarily means all food.

Mt 15:20 is the inspired explanation for Mt 15:11: He was referring to unwashed hands, not food. Messiah was attacking the Pharisees' oral-torah (traditions) which modified written-Torah (Mt 15:2).

 

[ananda]

That's a unique religion. So when Jesus said the cup was his blood of the new covenant (Lk 22:20), what blood was he talking about?

He was speaking about His blood which finally fulfilled the requirements for the Passover blood in the existing covenant. This is the Covenant which most Christians call "Old". Messiah was renewing the Covenant by casting off the myriad of man's traditions which had grown up around it.

 

[Clare73]

... and you'll understand that I follow the Scriptures which Messiah Himself identified as the Word of YHWH, which states that Sabbath was (Ex 20:8), is (Ex 31:16), and will be celebrated by His people in the future (Isa 66:22-24).

The only testimony that both you and I have is from the apostles.

The apostles believed Paul received revelation from Jesus Christ and commissioned him to preach the gospel to the Gentiles.

On what basis do you accept apostolic testimony in some areas but not in others?

 

[ananda]

The only testimony that both you and I have is from the apostles. The apostles believed Paul received revelation from Jesus Christ and commissioned him to preach the gospel to the Gentiles.

Source?

On what basis do you accept apostolic testimony in some areas but not in others?

If I may ask, what gives you reason to believe that I have two standards?

 

[Clare73]

Source?

In Acts, his trip to Jerusalem.

If I may ask, what gives you reason to believe that I have two standards?

From yours following:

From my perspective, you're both correct ... Paul was both speaking for and against the Torah ... this was exactly the characteristic of a Balaam (Rev 2:14). The Tanach records Balaam as both a true and a false prophet.

 

[Clare73]

Mt 15:20 is the inspired explanation for Mt 15:11: He was referring to unwashed hands, not food. Messiah was attacking the Pharisees' oral-torah (traditions) which modified written-Torah (Mt 15:2).

You didn't address the principle he stated.

If he were dealing only with their tradition, he could have said, that is the tradition of men, not the law of God.

But his response gave new law, covering everything that goes in one's mouth.

The Word of God shows that

• Christ gave law with the same authority as the Father gave law,

"If you love me, you will obey what I command. . .Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father." (Jn 14:15, 21).

And what are the commands the Father gave him to speak?

"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another." (Jn 13:34).

"By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another" (not if you devote yourselves to written regulations). (Jn 13:35)

"My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you." (Jn 15:12)

"This is my command: Love each other." (Jn 15:17)

"But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you." (Lk 6:27-28).

The Word of God likewise shows that

• the law of Christ which he gave is the law of God, they are one, they are the same.

The commands the Father gave Christ to speak are the law of Christ (1Co 9:21; Gal 6:2), which is love (Jas 2:8; Ro 13:8-10), and because the Father gave them to him to speak, they are the law of God (1Co 9:21), as are the laws God gave to Moses.

Both are the law of God, which God has the authority to change the conditions of, set aside, etc., which the Word of God reveals he has done.

The law of Moses has been set aside (Heb 7:18), and the people of God are now under the law of Christ (1Co 9:21; Gal 6:2), which bears no curse, instead of the law of Moses, with its curse for transgression (Dt 27:26)

 

[ananda]

In Acts, his trip to Jerusalem.

Acts is not first-hand testimony from the apostles. It is largely the second-hand witness of Luke If I wrote a "Modern Day Acts of the Apostles", would you accept it as first-hand testimony from the apostles? If not, what makes Luke any more legitimate?

From yours following:

Yes, I wrote that Paul was both true and false. How do you identify that with me having two standards?

 

[Clare73]

He was speaking about His blood which finally fulfilled the requirements for the Passover blood in the existing covenant. This is the Covenant which most Christians call "Old". Messiah was renewing the Covenant by casting off the myriad of man's traditions which had grown up around it.

You've got a problem with Christ, because he said it was the new covenant.

You'll understand if I take him at his plain, simple and clear words.

Covenants are not "renewed" in blood, covenants are made in blood.
He made a new covenant, just as he said he did.

This handling of the Scriptures is very loose.
A truckload of false teaching can be, and is being, driven between them.

 

[Clare73]

Acts is not first-hand testimony from the apostles. It is largely the second-hand witness of Luke If I wrote a "Modern Day Acts of the Apostles", would you accept it as first-hand testimony from the apostles? If not, what makes Luke any more legitimate?

You either believe the NT Word of God, or you don't.
I do.

There is no basis for discussion of the NT Word of God where unbelief of it exists.

 

[ananda]

You didn't address the principle he stated.If he were dealing only with their tradition, he could have said, that is the tradtion of men, not the law of God. But his response gave new law, covering everything that goes in one's mouth.

Does Torah say that eating unclean things make a man or woman unclean?

 

[ananda]

You've got a problem with Christ, because he said it was the new covenant. You'll understand if I take him at his plain, simple and clear words. Covenants are not "renewed" in blood, covenants are made in blood. e made a new covenant, just as he said he did. This handling of the Scriptures is very loose. A truckload of false teaching can be, and is being, driven between them.

The word "new", in the three instances where Messiah speaks about the "new covenant", is the Greek word kainos, which more accurately means "renewed". It is only "new" in the sense that it has not been seen recently; however, it has existed in the past. I've addressed this previously, please see here.

 

[ananda]

You either believe the NT Word of God, or you don't. I do. There is no basis for discussion of the NT Word of God where unbelief of it exists.

So you have no explanation as to why "Acts" by Luke would be more legitimate than "Acts" by netzarim, except blind faith?

What if I say I found another "Acts" written by the Apostle Phillip, which I found recently buried under the dry desert of Egypt. Would you automatically accept this "Acts" on blind faith, or would you test it against the rules previously established by YHWH and Messiah?

 

[Clare73]

Does Torah say that eating unclean things make a man or woman unclean?

Check out your food laws.

 

[Clare73]

The word "new", in the three instances where Messiah speaks about the "new covenant", is the Greek word kainos, which more accurately means "renewed". It is only "new" in the sense that it has not been seen recently; however, it has existed in the past. I've addressed this previously, please see here.

More loose handling of the Scriptures.

Actually, kainos means no such thing.

It means brand spanking new.

 

[Clare73]

So you have no explanation as to why "Acts" by Luke would be more legitimate than "Acts" by netzarim, except blind faith?

What if I say I found another "Acts" written by the Apostle Phillip, which I found recently buried under the dry desert of Egypt. Would you automatically accept this "Acts" on blind faith, or would you test it against the rules previously established by YHWH and Messiah?

Did you miss the part where I said I believe the received NT Word of God?

 

[ananda]

Check out your food laws.

I understand Torah's food laws, and how those eating unclean things will be consumed at the end (Isa 66:15-17).

 

[ananda]

Did you miss the part where I said I believe the received NT Word of God?

And by believing in what man put together as canon, do you realize that you're actually disregarding His commandments by doing so? These commandments are found in what we both classify as "Scripture".

 

[Clare73]

And by believing in what man put together as canon, do you realize that you're actually disregarding His commandments by doing so? These commandments are found in what we both classify as "Scripture".

What you will follow regarding what is Scripture and what is not is likewise put together by man.

I sit under the Word of God, not over it.

You set the Word of God against itself.

 

[ananda]

What you will follow regarding what is Scripture and what is not is likewise put together by man. I sit under the Word of God, not over it. You set the Word of God against itself.

Not so! What I follow as Scripture is witnessed to through fulfilled prophecy and the testimony of YHWH and Messiah.