Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Unfortunately, how one decides to look at it is not nearly as imporatant as how it's suppose to be looked at.
The covenant was changed because the people screwed up, as Hebrews tells us. Thus it went from the people putting the law into their hearts, to God doing it.
Good response.I suppose one can look at it like that...tho I myself do not
http://www.christianforums.com/t7525782/
Did Christ come to establish a New or Renewed Covenant with Israel?
Luke 5:37 "And no one is casting young wine into OLD vessels, if yet no surely shall be ruined the wine, the young of the vessels and it shall be being poured out and its vessels shall be perishing .
38 but young wine into NEW/kainouV <2537> vessels is to be cast and both are preserved together.
39 and no one drinking old immediately is willing young, for he is saying, 'for the the OLD kind/mellow/crhstoteroV <5543> is'".
[Matt 9:17/Mark 2:22/Hebrews 8:13]
So you wish to deny Scripture. OK. Just don't expect me to do the same.
Now where is it that those rules are recommanded in the NC/NT? What does LK 16:16 say? And that isn't Paul BTW.
Is Jesus lying or is He mis quoted? We have Jesus saying a new (kainos) commandment.
From what I understand, MJs focus mainly on the 1st 5 books of the OT, the Torah, and very little on the NT, especially the Epistles of PaulI hear ya bubba..
kjv
2 cor 3;13And not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:
From what I understand, MJs focus mainly on the 1st 5 books of the OT, the Torah, and very little on the NT, especially the Epistles of Paul
http://www.christianforums.com/t7599254-6/#post58746332
Originally Posted by yedida
is "fought" the word you wanted to use? Was it instead "fraught"? If so, yes, I'm pretty well-schooled in Torah. I don't read the NT so much anymore, so if those things are in there, they got by me last time I read it.
Hebrews totally...totally goes against people trying to keep the old cov alive.
Hebrews is about the sacrifical system. It's about the majesty of Christ's ministry and how it did away with the earthly system. A cursory reading of the book reveals that.
Last time I checked the word my is possessive. If one possesses something it is at least in their control and ususally means they own it.going on to something else? do you not remember what you said?
"Jesus took possession/ownership of His commandments in John 15:10. Jesus didn't take ownership of His Father's commandments."
i'm not going on to something else, i'm addressing what you said! i wanted you to explain what you said, (the part i have bolded), against what paul said in 1cor 7! (but of course, you didn't, you just deflect, as usual)
So is the subject matter marriage and adultery or the law? Is the focus sin or the law?how say you? the verse (1cor 7:19) itself is talking about the law, and the whole chapter is talking about adultery specifically.
How did I skirt the question? Isn't the issue the commandments and specifically the 10 Cs. Is that what I John 3:23 is saying? How? Please explain.unlike you, i won't skirt the question. here's another instance where the author is talking about God's laws. he gives the definition of sin in verse 4, which is transgression of the law, (but you don't want to talk about that verse).
It doesn't say whoever doesn't observe the law. Righteouness doesn't come by the law. see Rom 3:21, Gal 2:21, 3:21 and Phil 3:9. Same goes about Cain's righteousness referred to in v 12 below.in verse 10 john says:
Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother.
Again you have a problem with the pronouns. I sure wished sometimes there were no such things. It would make understing lots easier. I've addressed Mat 19:17-19 several times before. One must again consider not only the immediate context but the rest of Scripture as well. Your intention here makes Jesus lie (John 10)when He says one must come through Him to get into heaven or have access to God the Father, IOW possess salvation.this goes to psalms 119:172. he talks about one of the commandments in verse 12
in verse 22, he's talking about pleasing God by keeping His Commandments (see matt 19:17-19).
And you wish to hang the all the Christian faith on obedience to a superceded law that no longer has jurisdiction by the use of v 4. The point of v 23 is the covenant has changed and so did the requirements of God. Now talk about who is real.and then when you get to verse 23, you want to hinge the christian faith on the one verse? you need to get real. you see?
Where does from scratch promote keeping the commmandmnts? Please cite. I clearly don't promote sin which isn't the same thing as promoting obligation to the law for the Christian.it doesn't make sense to be preaching keeping God's commandments and then kick them to the curb, just to make a point for from scratch.
Isn't this saying that Jesus didn't issue the 10 Cs? I think so.john says what he did in verse 23, because before that time we didn't have a Son we could "hang our hat" on. so, it is only appropriate that he stated such.
Is my response above adequate?but not as, "this is it", and forget the "ten".
now, if you could answer my question to you as to 1Cor 7:19! (this is about the eighth thread i've asked you to explain this verse and you have not to this day!)
i've answered you, how about you answer me.
So you wish to deny Scripture. OK. Just don't expect me to do the same.
Now where is it that those rules are recommanded in the NC/NT? What does LK 16:16 say? And that isn't Paul BTW.
Is Jesus lying or is He mis quoted? We have Jesus saying a new (kainos) commandment.
God nor Christ are the authors of confusion [except perhaps to the Jews today?]I'll admit that I'm still not sure what Luke 16:16 means. I think it's interesting though that in verse 17 Christ says that heaven and earth will pass away before something from the law changes. So either Christ is confused, or He's not saying what you think He is.
How do the Jews look at it?
Oh I forgot, they are still waiting on their own Messiah to bring the NC to them...silly me
But is it true? That is the questionLLOJ, that was not necessarily funny!
That is correct. Not only from examining the statements Jesus, but also considering LK 16:16. So what is the truth? Evidently Luke if fibbing."it was said of old", well, Who do you think said it (ex 20, deut 5)? and Jesus is not teaching commandments?
IOW Jesus changed the law. It doesn't matter where it is changed. The law didn't include a matter of the heart as a trangression thereof. Otherwise Jesus couldn't make that statement.Matthew 5:27-28(NKJV)
27You have heard that it was said to those of old, You shall not commit adultery. (ex 20:14, deut 5:18)
28But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
no longer was physically committing the act was the requirement, but He adds that, if one thinks of the act, one has committed the offense! no one knew anything about that until the Christ laid it down. now, if that's not teaching, i don't know what is.
Then Jesus didn't fulfil all righteousness contrary to His testimony in LK 24:44.i thought i gave you scripture to show what i was talking about, in the term fulfill, i guess you missed it, (go back and reread).
Not so fast there. When were these words said?all things concerning Him is not fulfilled! if you read a little further you will get more meaning on the verse, not proof texting like you did.
Luke 24:46-48(NKJV)
46Then He said to them, Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day,
47and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
48And you are witnesses of these things.
Jesus clarifies what He's talking about. all the things that was written about Him, verses 46 and 47, was fulfilled, and He noted that the disciples were witnesses to those events. but, what about the scripture that was written about Him that has not been fulfilled?
Duly noted. And you should note that the day of vengeance doesn't apply to Jesus.example:
in luke 4:17-21, Jesus talks about fulfilling the prophecy of isaiah 61. but notice:
Isaiah 61:1-2(NKJV)
1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon Me, Because the Lord has anointed Me To preach good tidings to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives, And the opening of the prison to those who are bound;
2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, And the day of vengeance of our God; To comfort all who mourn,
He didn't read the part i have bolded because the time for the fulfillment of that part of the verse is yet future (lk 21:22). notice it! Jesus stopped in mid sentence of verse two!
My you're funny. Sorry couldn't pass that up.again, it doesn't matter what you think (2pet 1:20). what matters is what the bible says!
What did Jesus write? Wouldn't that be like Moses in this instance? Indeed Moses did write of Jesus such as Gen 1:26 and 3:15. I know that isn't complete and that isn't my purpose.moses wrote deut 18:15 and Jesus said that moses wrote of Him, (Jn 1:45, 5:46), not paul. so, maybe you need to back up and rethink that paul stuff.
Jesus for sure!and again, who do we believe? you or Jesus?
NOPE marriage and adultery was before the law. The law itself and Jesus both testify to this fact.ditto! can't argue against that!
romans 10:4 is one of those verses that can support your position or mine. so, i thought it was agreed on this forum not to use it for that reason. and as far as lk 16:16 is concerned, if you're using this verse to say that the law is done away, then, we have to admit that we're back to law by verse 18!
Matter of opinion, I guess.you may think you did, but you didn't!
Not really since all things were before the world existed.Unfortunately, how one decides to look at it is not nearly as imporatant as how it's suppose to be looked at.
The covenant was changed because the people screwed up, as Hebrews tells us. Thus it went from the people putting the law into their hearts, to God doing it.
in post 178 you said to lion, "quit wasting your time!", yet you still argued after that post, please explain the logic, I am confused now?
Interesting and a valid point.If it was renewed, that how come James said no Moses for the church in Acts 15? Would not what is written on the heart internally, have to also be acted out externally?
Hebrews totally...totally goes against people trying to keep the old cov alive.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?