Sunday Is Not the Sabbath

[SabbathBlessings]

The 2 verses in revelation 11:19-12:1 is a good start.
And the basic fact that Mary really DID carry the new covenant in her womb. Jesus Christ IS the new covenant.
We came to this point because I challenged your use of revelation 11:19. So I will not go too far further down the line. I will not begin to lay out the doctrine of Mary being the ark of the new covenant. If you are interested, you can google it yourself. There will be lots of scriptures and considerations. So for you to do if you ever catch the interest.

Only if we choose to delete scripture that shows the Ten Commandments are in ark of the covenant Hebrews 8:5 Exodus 25:10-20 Heb 9:4 and then add to scripture that Mary some how turned into the ark, but we are warned from doing so. Proverbs 30:5-6 Deut 4:2 Isaiah 8:20

This is the New Covenant….that was ratified by the blood of Jesus. Jesus did not become the law for us, He is not the creation, but the Creator of all things including His New Covenant and Law.

Hebrews 10:16 “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,”

Hebrews 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

Same law known to Jeremiah and his readers…

33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

Which why clear scripture says in the ark of the covenant is the Testimony of God- His Ten Commandments under His mercy seat because it is what we all will be judged by. James 2:10-12 regardless if we believe the scripture or not. The Ten Commandments is meant to show us our sin Romans 7:7 which is what Jesus came to save us from, not in May 1:21. Many think if we remove the law of God, it removes sin, but what it is actually doing is making one unaware of their sin and you can’t change something one is unaware of, which is a dangerous place to be, living in sin instead of overcoming sin through Jesus John 14:15-18.

 

[PeterDona]

Only if we choose to delete scripture that shows the Ten Commandments are in ark of the covenant Hebrews 8:5 Exodus 25:10-20 Heb 9:4 and then add to scripture that Mary some how turned into the ark, but we are warned from doing so. Proverbs 30:5-6 Deut 4:2 Isaiah 8:20

This is the New Covenant….that was ratified by the blood of Jesus. Jesus did not become the law for us, He is not the creation, but the Creator of all things including His New Covenant and Law.

Hebrews 10:16 “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,”

Hebrews 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

Same law known to Jeremiah and his readers…

33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

Which why clear scripture says in the ark of the covenant is the Testimony of God- His Ten Commandments under His mercy seat because it is what we all will be judged by. James 2:10-12 regardless if we believe the scripture or not. The Ten Commandments is meant to show us our sin Romans 7:7 which is what Jesus came to save us from, not in May 1:21. Many think if we remove the law of God, it removes sin, but what it is actually doing is making one unaware of their sin and you can’t change something one is unaware of, which is a dangerous place to be, living in sin instead of overcoming sin through Jesus John 14:15-18.

Right, you want to diverge from the topic of the thread, and go deeper into the question of, what is the new covenant. I made some initial observations in this previous post: click

Let me begin by describing what I perceive your angle to be.
(1) the new covenant is, that God will put the law of Moses into our hearts
(2) the ten commandments are the center of the law of Moses
(3) so to be a christian is to keep the 10 commandments
(4) therefore, the fourth command is still in effect
(5) therefore, religious celebration must be on a saturday and NOT on a sunday
(6) those who celebrate on sunday are devil worshippers and will go to the lake of fire
(7) more specifically, all other christian groups apart from the SDA, are devil worshippers and will go into the lake of fire.

Do you agree to this description? Did I miss some essential point? This is the good news that SDA preach?

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Right, you want to diverge from the topic of the thread, and go deeper into the question of, what is the new covenant. I made some initial observations in this previous post: click

Let me begin by describing what I perceive your angle to be.
(1) the new covenant is, that God will put the law of Moses into our hearts
(2) the ten commandments are the center of the law of Moses
(3) so to be a christian is to keep the 10 commandments
(4) therefore, the fourth command is still in effect
(5) therefore, religious celebration must be on a saturday and NOT on a sunday
(6) those who celebrate on sunday are devil worshippers and will go to the lake of fire
(7) more specifically, all other christian groups apart from the SDA, are devil worshippers and will go into the lake of fire.

Do you agree to this description? Did I miss some essential point? This is the good news that SDA preach?

Now you are adding to my words and most is not even close to what I or the SDA church believes. But I see this as a distraction on what we are talking about there is no scripture says Mary somehow became the ark of the Covenant and we can delete the scripture that says the Ten Commandments are inside the ark. I choose to believe the scriptures.

 

[PeterDona]

Now you are adding to my words and most is not even close to what I or the SDA church believes. But I see this as a distraction on what we are talking about there is no scripture says Mary somehow became the ark of the Covenant and we can delete the scripture that says the Ten Commandments are inside the ark. I choose to believe the scriptures.

Right, I will have to say then I am confused as to what you want to discuss. I need you to make a clarification.
This is one of the problems with interfaith dialogues. People make statements that to them have an obvious meaning, with all the unspoken assumptions, and another person trying to understand them get them wrong.
So please clarify, what is it you want to discuss.
As I understand it, you were about to enter a discussion about what the new covenant is, and I wanted to respond to that. Now it seems you want to discuss about Mary being the ark of the new covenant. I already told you (click), if you are interested in that special topic, google it. I am not taking it further here.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:
The church of God is from OT to NT as we see in Heb 11.

As well as sabbathblessings, you sidestep

As with all your posts so far - you did not even look at the text put to you (in this case Heb 11). You could also see Rom 11 if you needed more help with that.

from the question of how to interpret the passage rev 11:19 - 12:17

Is it your claim that you can only think about one section of Rev 11 and 12 and other Bible texts are just too confusing??

In Heb 11 - all of the "Giants of faith" held up before NT saints as examples for the church to follow - are OLD Testament
In Rom 11 - the NT saints are grafted in as "wild branches" unnatural branches, into the tree that belongs to Israel where the Jews are the"natural branches" - it is ONE church in BOTH OT and NT as we see in Rom 11

Gal 3:8 "The Gospel was preached to Abraham"

Because of that - we see in Rev that it is that one and only church of both OT and NT that gives birth to Christ.
Jesus said in John 4 "Salvation is of the Jews"
So then in Rev 12 that one and only church in both OT and NT ages - gives birth to Christ, then after He is taken to heaven that church is persecuted for 1260 years.

, in order to lecture on your topic the church

My topic "the church" as you call it - includes what the NT says about it -- are you ok with accepting the New Testament teaching on that topic or do you just want Rev 11 and 12??

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:
I guess we all agree that no scripture calls Mary "the ark of the New Covenant"

We have an understanding of the New Covenant that actually has the ability to quote the New Covenant itself as we find it in Jer 31:31-34 and Heb 8:6-12 "I will make a NEW Covenant... THIS is the Covenant I will make...".

You are posting as if you have not actually read the New Covenant. So while your pejorative statement above may be entertaining - facts speak louder than words. Try actually venturing to the point of quoting the New Covenant before claiming that you know something about it that someone else does not.

You are right on that point.

There is no such thing as "new ark of the covenant" in all of scripture. I assumed we both knew that.
details matter.

hmmm.. that speaks volumes - you are saying that what is at play is something not found at all in all of scripture.

It could be that you have a point here. One of the positions is based on scripture and the other is not. Suffice it to note - the New Covenant definition is actually IN scripture and not something that people make up ad hoc. The text matters.

As with sabbathblessings,

As usual - no scripture at all in your response and it stays focused on "Sabbath blessings"

I get the impression that
"my interpretation of scripture" = "the Word of God"

You have to actually respond to the Bible texts - to have an opinion on them in this thread.
I think this is the easy part of discussion.

Both you and sabbathblessings are probably not yet able to comprehend anything

ad hominem is not the great "solution" today that it was in the dark ages.
Give that a thought

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:

ok so since you post not one single text for "ark of the New Covenant" (much less Mary ark of the New Covenant) -- We need to look for where there is something in your text that comes from the actual Bible.

Well we find "Queen of heaven" is in fact in the Bible. So you get at least partial points for that one.

Jeremiah 7:18
The children gather wood, the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead dough to make sacrificial cakes for the queen of heaven; and they pour out drink offerings to other gods in order to provoke Me to anger.

I would not apply that to Mary -- I assume you would not do it either.

SDA doctrine also has a poor understanding of the Eucharist / Lord's supper.

Not true (as usual).

But since you are determined not to read any of the scriptures in this conversation -- you might as well add the 1 Cor 11 text on the Lord's supper to your list of Bible teachings you are not reading.

Why not rise to the level of actually discussing one of your points with enough interest to read it in scripture??

You seem to be content to sit and ridicule other congregation.

I have not mentioned "any congregation" -- I only discuss your lack of interest in the Bible.

I would never accuse an entire congregation of having the same lack of interest in the Bible as your posts show so far.

You even are able to sit and ridicule other christian faith.

I have said nothing about "other Christian faith" -- I only point to what is or is not actually in the text of scripture - and we both know it.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:

You yourself should know this as well as anyone since your efforts always run aground on the texts, instead of your much-speculated "they try to prove their views using Ellen White". You have to admit that were your false accusation even half true there would be points where we would need to switch from sola-scriptura evidence to sola-ellen-white... it must be difficult to be reminded time after time - that such is not the case.

Let me begin by stating that your paragraph does not conform to my experience of any of our conversations, nor do I think @MarkRohfrietsch or @Leaf473 or other members who have participated in these discussions would have a similar experience.

The challenge put to you - was to demonstrate your "must use Ellen White to support your views" idea. So far you still do not do that while seeming to want to claim that my statement about your claim vs what this forum actually shows - is not supported by the evidence.

The fundamental error Adventists who accept the standard SDA doctrine ... are making is to believe two things which are inconsistent with reality: firstly, that there can be only one logical way of interpreting the text of Scripture

IF you are saying that two opposing claims about the same scripture should both be regarded as correct -- then you are starting your argument with horribly flawed logic. You are shooting your own argument in the foot if that is what you are claiming.

, even though there is certainly a correct answer, multiple answers can appear to be correct,

We both know you have not one statement from any of us saying that no other option appears to anyone else as the right one.

The second mistake is to regard the SDA official interpretation of scripture as being logically consistent with the text,

We both know you have not one statement from me claiming that ''this view must be correct because it is the SDA official interpretation".

We both know that nobody on this forum says "I belong to my current denomination because their view is in error". Rather pretty much everyone tries to join the group that they believe has the best understanding of scripture.

Please be serious.

when it is rather arbitrary and eisgetical;

Which of course it is not. You are simply making a false accusation and offering not one shred of evidence to support it.
Why not simply claim you are using "name calling" as your system of 'proof' if that is how you are going to respond to points raised.

It is better to show some actual fact to support your wild accusations -- at least do it a little.

it may appear consistent with certain proof texts

The practice of calling the scripture support of any opposing view "proof texts" is just another tactic to avoid the texts and rely on a string of pejorative statements as the "substance" for your response.

Consider the text, consider an actual fact in scripture.

for example, the Pauline epistles, which the other day you appeared to deprecate much to my dismay.

Another false accusation.
I never said anything derogatory in the least about Paul other than to say that his writing is not the work of man - but is the result of the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit (which for some reason you now claim to spin as some sort of derogatory statement against Paul).

Your logic here is horribly flawed and if it is not - you should try at least a little - to provide supporting evidence for your pejoratives.

 

[BobRyan]

You're probably already aware of this thread. I think posts #1 and #4 are especially interesting.
Ellen's writings "...offer an inspired guide to Bible passages..."

And they "...correct inaccurate interpretations..."

Are you aware of the Bible teaching about inspiration? do you consider the Bible to be in error because it says prophets are inspired by God 2 Pet 1:20-21 2 Tim 3:16 -- are you wanting to ignore the Bible topic that you post on??

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:
BobRyan said:
you mention "queen of heaven"

Yes, maybe I should not, because I realize where most protestants will immediately go

Indeed -- protestants (such as SDAS on this thread) will go to scripture when it comes to that topic.
Others apparently are not so interested in the Bible when it comes to that topic (as other protestants on this thread show)

In order to not mess up matters too much, and not giving you more than you can chew, I will not go further into that concept.

Nice of you to "once again" ignore the texts of scripture -- in this case the ones that speak to your own title "queen of heaven" that you put into this thread.

Does that ever get "old"?

The Bible is a good thing.

Right.
I used those pejoratives a bit provocatively.

obviously.

That is not the difficult part of the discussion to understand.

I do however get the impression that you and sabbathblessings are not able to accept much that lie outside the SDA doctrine.

So are you put no actual facts in your pejorative claims to support the idea that your view is remotely accurate.

Why not give it a shot??

The thing is, that there are MAJOR doctrines, KEY doctrines, that the SDA do not hold. I listed (1) the new covenant and (2) the Eucharist.

And you refused to read or even quote the actual New Covenant found in both OT and NT
And you refused to read or even quote the Lord' Supper statement found in 1 Cor 11

Were we simply "Not supposed to notice?"

How do you expect your arguments to be taken seriously but an actual Bible student - using those sorts of tactics??

(and I did not include Mary the ark of the new covenant among those, or even Mary the queen of heaven. Those are not key doctrines in my view.)

I did not bring those titles in this thread - you did.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:

You can of course find the New Covenant in Jer 31:31-34 Heb 8:6-12

Good. A good start.

Since you keep making claims about the New Covenant - start by reading it.
Actually quote it ..
I gave you the scriptures now give it a shot.

then using actual facts tell me what part of that text you think I don't "understand" since keep claiming I don't understand the New Covenant.

 

[PeterDona]

As with all your posts so far - you did not even look at the text put to you (in this case Heb 11). You could also see Rom 11 if you needed more help with that.

Is it your claim that you can only think about one section of Rev 11 and 12 and other Bible texts are just too confusing??

In Heb 11 - all of the "Giants of faith" held up before NT saints as examples for the church to follow - are OLD Testament
In Rom 11 - the NT saints are grafted in as "wild branches" unnatural branches, into the tree that belongs to Israel where the Jews are the"natural branches" - it is ONE church in BOTH OT and NT as we see in Rom 11

Gal 3:8 "The Gospel was preached to Abraham"

Because of that - we see in Rev that it is that one and only church of both OT and NT that gives birth to Christ.
Jesus said in John 4 "Salvation is of the Jews"
So then in Rev 12 that one and only church in both OT and NT ages - gives birth to Christ, then after He is taken to heaven that church is persecuted for 1260 years.

My topic "the church" as you call it - includes what the NT says about it -- are you ok with accepting the New Testament teaching on that topic or do you just want Rev 11 and 12??

I will have to ask you for some discussion forum etiquette.

In this post you make 5 quotations from me. And shoot back. I would like you to make a reply with an identifiable focus. And since we do not belong to the same religion, you should make a pedagogical effort to be understandable. Focus and clearness of thought are important.

And some of the quotations are snapped in the middle of their meaning, making them say something I did not say. That does not help either. that is an irritation. Please do better at quoting me.

And one reply here: in order not to go in a lot of different directions, I may neglect to look at some of the bible quotes "put to me". Again, you can be helpful by keeping a clear focus in your posts. If you decide to quote me, let it be a maximum of 2 quotes, and let the connection be clear.

Thank you

 

[PeterDona]

BobRyan said:

You can of course find the New Covenant in Jer 31:31-34 Heb 8:6-12

Since you keep making claims about the New Covenant - start by reading it.
Actually quote it ..
I gave you the scriptures now give it a shot.

then using actual facts tell me what part of that text you think I don't "understand" since keep claiming I don't understand the New Covenant.

So let me get it.
(1) You want do discuss the new covenant?
(2) and you think the starting point of the new covenant is the prophecy in Jeremiah 31:31-34, as also quoted in hebrews 8:6-12?
When you say, "start by reading it" (the new covenant), do you mean, read those verses?

 

[BobRyan]

(1) Moses promises a new lawgiver in Deuteronomy 18:18. Jesus is that new lawgiver.

1. Deut 18:18 does not say "new lawgiver" -

15 “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your countrymen; to him you shall listen. 16 This is in accordance with everything that you asked of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly, saying, ‘Do not let me hear the voice of the Lord my God again, and do not let me see this great fire anymore, or I will die!’ 17 And the Lord said to me, ‘They have spoken well. 18 I will raise up for them a prophet from among their countrymen like you, and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them everything that I command him.​

2. Jews claimed that Moses gave them manna - but Jesus corrects them - saying GOD gave them manna in John 6:30-32

​

30 So they said to Him, “What then are You doing as a sign, so that we may see, and believe You? What work are You performing? 31 Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread out of heaven to eat.’” 32 Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven.​

3. God says it was God that gave the law at Sinai - not Moses - Deut 5:22

4. Heb 8:6-12 says it was JESUS (God the Son) speaking at Sinai - giving the Law.

​

That is how he can say "but I say to you". And that is how he can even annul a ruling of Moses (Matthew 19:8-9).

Matt 19:8-9 Christ MAGNIFIES the Law regarding adultery and marriage instead of annulling it.

3 Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” 4 And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no person is to separate.” 7 They *said to Him, “Why, then, did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?” 8 He *said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”​

​

Jesus is not commanding them to get divorced - rather He raises the moral obligation far above the civil law in Israel. Moral law and civil law are not the same thing - as almost all denominations admit (even your own Pope John Paul II admits this when it comes to the TEN).

Jesus' MAGNIFIED standard went beyond the level of civil law divorce being permitted. He strengthened restriction - he did not loosen/annul it.

AND Jesus made NO NEW civil law. So this is NOT a case of Jesus replacing a civil law stated by Moses with a new civil law.

​

10 The disciples *said to Him, “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.” 11 But He said to them, “Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by people; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who is able to accept this, let him accept it.”​

 

[BobRyan]

(2)There is one scripture that is important above almost all else. Luke 22:20

You find it in Matt 22.
34 But when the Pharisees heard that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. 35 And one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him: 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ (Deut 6:5) 38 This is the great and foremost commandment. 39 The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ (Lev 19:18) 40 Upon these two commandments hang the whole Law and the Prophets.”

And no text says "This is the most important scripture of all" regarding Luke 22:20
Nor does Luke 22 say "I will make a NEW Covenant - this IS the Covenant I will make..."

The actual text of the New Covenant is the one you refuse to quote - even though I point it out to you repeatedly in both the NT and the OT. It is the same... unchanged.

31 “Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers on the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord. 33 “For this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord: “I will put My law within them and write it on their heart; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 They will not teach again, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the Lord, “for I will forgive their wrongdoing, and their sin I will no longer remember.” Jer 31:31-34​

​

And it is unchanged, verbatim the same - in Heb 8.​

​

​

 

[BobRyan]

(2)There is one scripture that is important above almost all else. Luke 22:20
"In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you." (Luke 22:20 NIV) This scripture actually connects the new covenant with the Eucharist. We see that the Eucharist IS the new covenant (!)


To let you know, I was a sola scriptura for about 25 years. I have read the Bible through at least 3 times, and written through the new testament. I converted in 2019, and have limited grounding in catholic tradition. I try to take only what can be proved from Scripture.

That is a good start - exegesis means taking all the takes related to the same topic into consideration.

1 Cor 11 has been brought up to you several times and you are refusing to look at it.

​

23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night when He was betrayed, took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same way He also 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.​

There we find that the communion service is a memorial not a sacrifice and we find that it remembers the Lord's DEATH until He comes. So the Christian focus teaches the perfect life, death, burial, resurrection and ascension of Jesus to the right hand of the Father. But the communion service is a MEMORIAL of His Death - a Friday event if one cares about which day of the week it occurred.

Paul also said -

Heb 8.
Now the main point in what has been said is this: we have such a high priest, who has taken His seat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, 2 a minister in the sanctuary and in the true tabernacle, which the Lord set up, not man. 3 For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices; so it is necessary that this high priest also have something to offer. 4 Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who offer the gifts according to the Law; 5 who serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, just as Moses was warned by God when he was about to erect the tabernacle; for, “See,” He says, “that you make all things by the pattern which was shown to you on the mountain.” 6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, to the extent that He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.

That is offered "once for all"
(so no "confecting the body blood soul and divinity of Christ in the mass"

Heb 10

8 After saying above, “Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and offerings for sin You have not desired, nor have You taken pleasure in them” (which are offered according to the Law), 9 then He said, “Behold, I have come to do Your will.” He takes away the first in order to establish the second. 10 By this will, we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all time.

11 Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; 12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God,

18 Now where there is forgiveness of these things, an offering for sin is no longer required.
19 Therefore, brothers and sisters, since we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus, 20 by a new and living way which He inaugurated for us through the veil, that is, through His flesh, 21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22 let’s approach God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:

You can of course find the New Covenant in Jer 31:31-34 Heb 8:6-12
Since you keep making claims about the New Covenant - start by reading it. Actually quote it ..
I gave you the scriptures now give it a shot.
then using actual facts tell me what part of that text you think I don't "understand" since keep claiming I don't understand the New Covenant.

So let me get it.
(1) You want do discuss the new covenant?

You are the one that brought the New Covenant topic into this thread claiming that some whole denomination does not know what it is if they don't agree with you ..I did not do that.

(2) and you think the starting point of the new covenant is the prophecy in Jeremiah 31:31-34, as also quoted in hebrews 8:6-12?

Hmm the text that says "I WILL make a NEW COVENANT.... THIS IS THE COVENANT ..."

Yeah - the actual text of the covenant - the contract, the agreement, the actual words of it...

You would think that after claiming you had the only true version of it - you would at least QUOTE it.

When you say, "start by reading it" (the new covenant), do you mean, read those verses?

Read verses that say "NEW Covenant... THIS IS the covenant..." -- give an indication that you know what it is, that in fact you ever read it.

 

[BobRyan]

And one reply here: in order not to go in a lot of different directions, I may neglect to look at some of the bible quotes "put to me".

the texts that show the point I have stated is coming right out of the Word of God .. are "important" because - details matter.

I don't see this as the difficult part of the discussion. In every case the texts are supporting a point made in response to a claim/accusation that is quoted from your post against others.

Again, you can be helpful by keeping a clear focus in your posts. If you decide to quote me, let it be a maximum of 2 quotes, and let the connection be clear.

Thank you

I am trying to focus on smaller more single-point posts.

 

[PeterDona]

1. Deut 18:18 does not say "new lawgiver" -

15 “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your countrymen; to him you shall listen. 16 This is in accordance with everything that you asked of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly, saying, ‘Do not let me hear the voice of the Lord my God again, and do not let me see this great fire anymore, or I will die!’ 17 And the Lord said to me, ‘They have spoken well. 18 I will raise up for them a prophet from among their countrymen like you, and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them everything that I command him.​

2. Jews claimed that Moses gave them manna - but Jesus corrects them - saying GOD gave them manna in John 6:30-32

​

30 So they said to Him, “What then are You doing as a sign, so that we may see, and believe You? What work are You performing? 31 Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread out of heaven to eat.’” 32 Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven.​

3. God says it was God that gave the law at Sinai - not Moses - Deut 5:22

4. Heb 8:6-12 says it was JESUS (God the Son) speaking at Sinai - giving the Law.

​

Matt 19:8-9 Christ MAGNIFIES the Law regarding adultery and marriage instead of annulling it.

3 Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” 4 And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no person is to separate.” 7 They *said to Him, “Why, then, did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?” 8 He *said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”​

​

Jesus is not commanding them to get divorced - rather He raises the moral obligation far above the civil law in Israel. Moral law and civil law are not the same thing - as almost all denominations admit (even your own Pope John Paul II admits this when it comes to the TEN).

Jesus' MAGNIFIED standard went beyond the level of civil law divorce being permitted. He strengthened restriction - he did not loosen/annul it.

AND Jesus made NO NEW civil law. So this is NOT a case of Jesus replacing a civil law stated by Moses with a new civil law.

​

10 The disciples *said to Him, “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.” 11 But He said to them, “Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by people; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who is able to accept this, let him accept it.”​

Right, thanks for taking the time to make posts more focused and single-pointed. Although now I have 5 posts to answer. Let me however respond to that. Do you expect me to be superman and digest 5 posts totally, before creating an answer? Or do you have a tendency to "explode" and open up about all sorts of things at once. Then I would encourage you to take a deep breath before starting to post, and ask yourself, which is the most important point you want to get across. That will be helpful for me. And probably others also. Take a deep breath my friend

(1) With respect to the scripture deut 18:15-18, you take note that " Deut 18:18 does not say "new lawgiver" "
That is true, but it is in verse 15 and verse 19
deut 18:15 "unto him ye shall hearken"
deut 18:19 "whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will reguire it of him"
Moses (actually God) gives a carte blance for this new prophet. We can study in the new testament how Jesus treats this privilege. The sermon on the mount is a masterpiece on this. It is structered in phrases like "you have heard ... but I say" "it has been said ... but I say". How can anyone use the language "but I say"? Only if he is really a lawgiver, and he has the right to give a ruling. Also, this is where the new commandment in John 13:34 comes in. Called "the 11th commandment". Jesus has the authority to give a new commandment.

(2) with respect to the manna in the desert, what role does that play in your religious system? In the catholic understanding, the manna in the desert is a shadow of the Eucharist, as laid out in the whole John 6 chapter, which is the longest coherent text on the Eucharist in the new testament.
I should note that for me, the manna in the desert is a sidetrack at this point. But for you somehow it fits into the presentation. That is why I ask you, what role does it play in your religious system?

(3) you then go on with a discussion of the law being given by God. I do not know that I would disagree. And a response to matthew 19:8-9 which is not too far off my own evaluation. I will leave the rest of the post unanswered.

 

[PeterDona]

Right @BobRyan we now at least established a starting point for our discussion on the new covenant. The prophecy in deut 18:15-18.

As a catholic (this is a topic I learned only after turning catholic) I would then go in the direction of studying how Moses acted as a lawgiver, and how Jesus acted as a lawgiver, and finding the relevant references mandating them each.

It seems to me that when you start in the same place, you quickly turn in the direction of the law itself, as if it is from heaven, and immutable, and so on.

I would like to present to you some verses on
(1) Moses the lawgiver
(2) Jesus the new lawgiver
which then will develop into
(3) the lawgiving / ruling authority of the church
as well as maybe
(4) the ruling authority of the scribes and the pharisees with respect to the old law

I will if you allow me. But to get there, I think we need to understand one issue. Namely your view on the law. Is the law, as I put it, immutable, a heavenly / divine thing that can never be altered? What is your position?

In order to keep focus, I will not answer the other 4 posts you made. I hope this is acceptable to you. If there is something you really want me to address, do have the politeness to point me to it again.