Messiah and the Covenant

[Clare73]

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

Peter groups Paul's writings with "the other Scriptures" (2Pe 3:16), testifying to his belief that they are of divine origin.

And then Paul, whom Peter verifies, quotes a statement from "Scripture" that is from Luke's writings only.

So Peter verifies Paul's writings, and Paul verifies Luke's writings.

And then there are all those Christians during their time who were in a position to know the truth of what Luke wrote.

You set yourself above the apostles of Jesus Christ, and set the Word of God against itself.

 

[ananda]

Peter groups Paul's writings with "the other Scriptures" (2Pe 3:16), testifying to his belief that they are of divine origin. And then Paul, whom Peter verifies, quotes a statement from "Scripture" that is from Luke's writings only. So Peter verifies Paul's writings, and Paul verifies Luke's writings. And then there are all those Christians during their time who were in a position to know the truth of what Luke wrote. You set yourself above the apostles of Jesus Christ, and set the Word of God against itself.

I've addressed all this previously.

 

[JLB777]

I've addressed all this previously.

You have no scripture to prove your point.

The New Covenant is here.

Don't miss out because of your unbelief!

JLB

 

[Pilgrimer]

First, 2Chr 36:10 does not say that all the "vessels" (כל&#1497 were taken away. Second, the "vessels" (tools, כל&#1497 are identified separately from other Temple articles of greater importance (ark, altar, laver, etc.) in Scripture itself (e.g. Ex 31:7, etc.).

If you are suggesting that only the smaller implements were taken and not the "articles of greater importance," that is not correct. Jeremiah 52:17-23 gives a more detailed list of the items the Babylonians took from the temple and it includes the 10 lampstands (apparently the original lampstand and table of shewbread from the original tabernacle were not used in Solomon's Temple. It is unlikely that they were either stored or hidden anywhere, but were probably melted down and used in the new.) No mention is made in the list however of the 10 tables or the golden altar except that it says they took away "that which was of gold in gold, and that which was of silver in silver." The largest items of the temple, such as the two massive pillars that stood before the porch, as well as the massive bronze laver and it's base made of 12 bulls and other large brass items were all broken up and the brass carted off to Babylon. But the ark is not specifically mentioned.

Just because Nebuchadnezzar brought back a number of valuable tools (כל&#1497 from the Temple does not mean that he took the Ark.

I did not say he did. I simply said that the last time the Ark is mentioned in Scripture is when it was placed in Solomon's Temple by Josiah before the Babylonians plundered and then destroyed the Temple.

Your view on the whereabouts of the Ark after its last mention in Scripture is also based on tradition and conjecture, not Scripture. You choose to believe your tradition, I choose to believe mine for reasons as I've stated.

The last time the Ark was mentioned in Scripture was when it sat in Solomon's Temple. There is no mention or evidence of it after that. That's not tradition, that's simply the facts. It is you who is appealing to tradition to try to justify not going to Jerusalem to keep the feasts. I go the Jerusalem and I keep the feasts in the presence of God.

"A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. " Eze 36:26,27[/quote[

I highlighted the quote you offered to point out that this is what I have been saying, although obviously clumsily and ineffectually. Without the Lord putting His spirit within you it is not possible to walk in His statutes and keep His judgments because they are spiritual, not carnal.

We have radically different perspectives on Scripture, its relative authority, and doctrine. I fully comprehend your doctrine, as I was steeped in Baptist and evangelical theology for the past 20 years, so I've heard it before. After intensely studying the Judaic perspective for the past two years, I can say that I comprehend both perspectives. Can you say the same?

Absolutely I can! I found from the very beginning of studying New Testament history that it is very helpful to understand the Rabbinic messianic theology that prevailed at the time of Jesus. It explains why the vast majority of the Jewish people, and especially the religious leaders, rejected the very Messiah the Law and the Prophets spoke of. It was not enough for me to know that they did, I wanted to understand why they did. Can you say the same?

But it is heartbreaking to me to see Christians following the same traditional Rabbinic interpretations that made void the Law, which are now also making void the Gospel. But I suppose that is to be expected because after all, the Law preaches the Gospel through symbols, and types, and figures, so doctrines that void one will void the other.

And what inevitably happens is the same thing that has happened to so very many of the Jewish people. They were so blinded by the glory of the Law, and it is glorious, that is not in dispute, but that very glory can blind you to the glory of Jesus, before whom the Law pales in comparison and is but a shadow.

I think a lot of what ails the church today is the way she has interpreted the Revelation of Jesus Christ, as if it is a book given to reveal the future. It's not. The Revelation of Jesus Christ is a book given to reveal the Glorified Risen Triumphant Everliving Reigning King of Glory.

When Moses went up into the mount to receive the Law, he was given a vision of heavenly things, of a heavenly city and temple and courts and altar and sacrifices and priests and ministry and worship and the very throneroom in heaven. And he was told to pattern the things of the Law after what he had been shown. What he saw was so glorious his countenance was literally lit up with an unearthly light. And when he came down out of the mount to speak with the people, they ran from him in terror and refused to approach and speak with him until he put a veil over his face. That should teach us something. We must be very careful when we look into the Law, with all it's glorious and perfect and holy commandments and statues and odinances, and it's temple and altars and sacrifices and ministry and priests and worship, that we do not allow the glory of those things to cover our eyes with that same veil so that we cannot see beyond it to the heavenly things which the things of the Law were patterned after.

The Law is beautiful, holy, glorious, wonderful. I have studied the Law for over half of my life, and I'm almost 60, and I love the Law of God. But the Law pales in comparison to the Beauty and Wonder and Glory and Holiness of the Crucified One whom the Law was given to point us to and teach us about.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

 

[Pilgrimer]

... 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).

That's exactly what those who deny Jesus believe.

They are wrong. And so are you. In more ways than you will probably ever know. There was no Sabbath in the Temple.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

 

[Clare73]

Sources, from two or more first-hand witnesses, please?

The apostles themselves were already commissioned by Messiah to preach to the Gentiles. You're suggesting that they disobeyed Messiah by delegating this responsibility to Paul instead.

I'm not suggesting anything.

I am stating that Peter groups Paul's writings with "the other Scriptures" (2Pe 3:16), testifying to its divine origin.

I am stating that Paul refers to a reference found only in Luke's writing as "the Scripture says," testifying to their divine origin.

I am stating that the Word of God states that Peter, James and the apostles of Jesus Christ commissioned Paul, the apostle, to preach the gospel to the Gentiles, because they believed his revelations were from Jesus Christ.

I am stating that unbelief of Luke's writings,
is unbelief of Paul's writings, who testifies to the origin of Luke's writings,
which is unbelief of Peter's testimony to the origin of Paul's writings.

I am stating that you do not accept the testimony of the apostle Peter.

And I am asking, if you do not accept the first-hand testimony of Peter, why do you accept the testimony of Matthew and Mark?

 

[Clare73]

YHWH speaks through all Scripture, but not all books identified by man is necessarily Scripture.

So what Peter identifies as Scripture is not Scripture?

On what basis do you deny Peter's testimony in 2Pe 3:16?

 

[ananda]

I am stating that you do not accept the testimony of the apostle Peter. And I am asking, if you do not accept the first-hand testimony of Peter, why do you accept the testimony of Matthew and Mark?

Does Scripture say that Peter is infallible?

I accept the first-hand testimony of the apostles Matthew and John. I consider Mark and Luke second-hand information.

I accept the John 21:15-22 prophecy by Messiah to be about Peter's deception by Paul.

 

[ananda]

So what Peter identifies as Scripture is not Scripture? On what basis do you deny Peter's testimony in 2Pe 3:16?

Please see my previous post #362.

 

[Pilgrimer]

Sources, from two or more first-hand witnesses, please?

Be careful Netzarim. The Sanhedrin found two who bore false witness against Jesus. Two witnesses is not the standard for what comes from God.

"If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself."

The "witness" that the saints have "within" is the Spirit of God.

The apostles themselves were already commissioned by Messiah to preach to the Gentiles. You're suggesting that they disobeyed Messiah by delegating this responsibility to Paul instead.

Paul being commissioned by Jesus to preach to the Gentiles in no way undermined the Apostle's responsibility or obedience to the Commission Jesus gave them. Why would you suggest such a thing?

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

 

[Clare73]

Does Scripture say that Peter is infallible?

I accept the first-hand testimony of the apostles Matthew and John. I consider Mark and Luke second-hand information.

I accept the John 21:15-22 prophecy by Messiah to be about Peter's deception by Paul.

Okay, so according to you,

1) the gospel of Mark
2) the gospel of Luke
3) the book of Acts
4) Romans
5) 1 Corinthians
6) 2 Corinthians
7) Galatians
8) Ephesians
9) Colossians
10) 1 Thessalonians
11) 2 Thessalonians
12) 1 Timothy
13) 2 Timothy
14) Titus
15) Philemon
16) Hebrews
17) 1 Peter
18) 2 Peter

are all invalid.

We don't get the Messiah on our own terms, we get him only on his terms.

Chutzpah. . .

 

[ananda]

Be careful Netzarim. The Sanhedrin found two who bore false witness against Jesus. Two witnesses is not the standard for what comes from God.

A witness must possess first-hand knowledge of an issue to meet Scriptural requirements. See Lev 5:1, 1Jn 1:2, Job 29:11. Second-hand, or hearsay, information is insufficient. The testimony of two or more witnesses does not automatically make their testimony true. The agreed testimony of two or more first-hand witnesses is required to simply begin an investigation into the truth of a matter. The testimony of witnesses is only established as true when they agree with the Law and the Prophets (cf. Isa 8:20, 30:9-14, Lk 10:26, etc.).

Paul being commissioned by Jesus to preach to the Gentiles in no way undermined the Apostle's responsibility or obedience to the Commission Jesus gave them. Why would you suggest such a thing?

To believe Paul (Gal 2:7-9) would mean to accept his belief that he alone was sent to the Gentiles, and the 12 were sent only to the Jews; this contradicts Messiah's Word.

 

[JLB777]

Does Scripture say that Peter is infallible?

I accept the first-hand testimony of the apostles Matthew and John. I consider Mark and Luke second-hand information.

I accept the John 21:15-22 prophecy by Messiah to be about Peter's deception by Paul.

If you accept the first hand testimony of John, then you accept that the New Covenant is in effect, of which you deny as such.

If you deny the New Covenant, then you deny Jesus as The Christ!


JLB

 

[Clare73]

I've addressed all this previously.

I am so grateful for the powerful witness of the Holy Spirit which bears testimony to me of the divine origin and truth of all 66 books of the Bible.

 

[ananda]

Okay, so according to you,

1) the gospel of Luke
2) the book of Acts
3) Romans
4) 1 Corinthians
4) 2 Corinthians
5) Galatians
6) Ephesians
7) Colossians
8) 1 Thessalonians
9) 2 Thessalonians
10) 1 Timothy
11) 2 Timothy
12) Titus
13) Philemon
14) Hebrews
15) 1 Peter
16) 2 Peter

are all invalid.

We don't get the Messiah on our own terms, we get him only on his terms.

Chutzpah. . .

I accept 1Peter and Luke on the level of the Ketuvim.

Do you believe that I can hear the salvation message through Messiah's Words only, or do I need Paul's words too?

 

[JLB777]

I accept 1Peter and Luke on the level of the Ketuvim.

Do you believe that I can hear the salvation message through Messiah's Words only, or do I need Paul's words too?

Explain how one receives salvation, according to the New Covenant.


JLB

 

[Pilgrimer]

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.

Perhaps you missed my earlier comment on this and are not therefore intentionally misrepresenting.

The Greek word kainos means something new. Kainos is the ONLY greek word used to refer to the New Testament.

The Greek word for renew is anakinezo. The one and only use of anakinezo is in Hebrews 6:6 where it is said that once a man has fallen away from the truth, it is impossible to renew him again to repentence, seeing they crucify Jesus to themselves again, putting him to an open shame.

Otherwise, I would like to know what dictionary you found where kainos means renew. The publishers should be made aware of the error.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

 

[Pilgrimer]

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

Peter's vision from God of the sheet being lowered three times and him being instructed to eat of unclean animals was a lesson that there is a spiritual meaning to the commandments.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

 

[Clare73]

I accept 1Peter and Luke on the level of the Ketuvim.

Do you believe that I can hear the salvation message through Messiah's Words only, or do I need Paul's words too?

The Word of God reveals that there was more divine revelation given after the death and ascension of Jesus, which gives

• the meaning and effects of Christ's sacrifice on the cross,
• Christ's fulfillments of the shadows and patterns of the OT,
• the true purpose (to reveal sin) and basis of the Mosaic law (Aaronic priesthood),
• the setting aside of the Mosaic law with its curse, and its replacement with the law of Christ (love) with no curse,
• the establishment of the New Covenant in the shed blood of Christ,
• the obsoleteness of the Sinaitic (Old) Covenant,
• salvation by grace through faith in Christ, rather than by law keeping,
• believing Gentiles admitted into the people of God on the same terms and the same footing as believing Jews,
• believers in Christ as the true seed of Abraham,
• current hardening by God (Ro 11:7) of unbelieving Israel,
• all mankind locked up in sin so that God can have mercy on them all,
• etc., etc., etc.

One's knowledge of Christ is stunted without full knowledge of the NT Word of God.

 

[Clare73]

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

So, what did you find in the Law?