Why do you think God allowed the temple to be knocked down?

[cyberlizard]

The "new deal" as you put it has to do with better promises, not different laws.

where can I find those 'better promises' explicitly spelled out?


Steve

 

[Frogster]

where can I find those 'better promises' explicitly spelled out?


Steve

By faith..

rom 4:13 For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith.

Promises are always better,because they are god centered,not man centered.


Hebrews 6:17
So when God desired to show more convincingly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeable character of his purpose, he guaranteed it with an oath,

 

[bugkiller]

Only in application, the principle remains.


You can't bend truth to your understanding. You bend to the truth. You don't understand the purpose of the temple if you think its only reason for existence was because of the law.


Again, you miss the entire purpose of Hebrews. It's talking about the priesthood. The very context of this verse is referring to the laws regarding the priesthood. The law required a priest to be of tribe of Levi. Christ was not of Levi, thus His change to our High Priest brought about a change to the law regarding the priesthood.

I kinda hate to be nit picky on this. I notice you indicate an amended law. We did not get an amended covenant. We got a new covenant. Hebrews 7:12 says a change of law not a change to the law. Change here means disestablishment. The greek word is also translated as removing.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

Forgive me if I missed it but if this is a whole new deal, why is it so similar to the "old deal"

OC - Love God, Love your Neighbor

NC - Love God, Love your Neighbor.

Why did we need a new covenant? Not because of the law but because of the people.

Hebrews 8:8 But God found fault with the people and said: "The time is coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.

Notice that the reason for the new covenant was because of the people. The verse does not read that God found fault with the law. THe law is just as perfect as He is thus it didn't need to be changed. The people on the other hand...

Oh, consequentially, notice how it says the covenant is with Judah and Israel...take that for what its worth.

Ah you used the word similar. That is very refreshing. Similar and same are quite different terms. Jer 31:31, 32 is in agreement with what we both said. It states not according to the covenant made with their fathers. So similar is very reasonable.

Now I have discussed your last statement in detail over on RND's thread I think. Acts shows that the gentiles were included in the new covenant and were never referred to as Jews or spiritual Jews and in fact told they did not have to observe the law of Moses which includes the ten commandments.

We needed a new covenant that could redeem us. The law could not redeem, it could only condemn and punish.

To discuss the purpose of the law would be a different topic. I get rather tired of people derailing a thread. Especially when they refuse to listen to anything and promote or talk about something else. Why can't folks discuss a topic?

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

The "new deal" as you put it has to do with better promises, not different laws.

Why then is not the 4th repeated in the better deal?

bugkiller

 

[Deut 5:29]

Why then is not the 4th repeated in the better deal?

bugkiller

The "4th" is shown by example so many times even a biblical illiterate couldn't miss it.

 

[bugkiller]

God's word says He is no respecter of persons. You disagree. The least you could do is posit a scripture or two to back up this POV.

We were talking about the promises to Israel. According to the scripture I posted all were fulfilled in Christ.

Brother I'm in the Ark of God. No holes in it!

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

I'm sorry such thinking won't wash in the 21st century. God did not destroy Haiti. God does not destroy tall buildings. Blaming God for everything is largely an act of fear - a fear to confront our own inadequacies.

I don't follow. Are you saying that the destruction of the temple wasn't God's doing? Or that God did not use Pharaoh?

bugkiller

 

[wayseer]

I don't follow. Are you saying that the destruction of the temple wasn't God's doing? Or that God did not use Pharaoh?

bugkiller

The Romans destroyed the Temple - not God. Stop blaming God for everything you don't like.

 

[bugkiller]

The "4th" is shown by example so many times even a biblical illiterate couldn't miss it.

In all instances of the observance ormentionof the sabbath there is not a single word in requirement. All citations in the Gospels except after the cross are subject to the law as the new covenant was not effective until then. In Acts the only one who seem to be observing the sabbath are the Jews, proslelytes and ethnic Jews who are also new Christians.

bugkiller

 

[Frogster]

The Romans destroyed the Temple - not God. Stop blaming God for everything you don't like.

Well,there was exile too.Not only that,but "left desolate",could be language like when a home had leprosy.We also have to figure,how long would God permit them to trample the spirit of grace,and offer an unsult of animals?