Thanks for the exchange.
Hope all is well ...
Peg, if you get a sec, please disclose what verse(s) or argument(s) are being used to support that the new covenant may have a written or oral law code.
purpledawn writes:
weary writes:
Is it fair to say that a firm authority has not been recognized or established within the premise?
In Message 8 Peg has the Christian Congregation as the controlling authority.
Very ambiguous. Within our premise, what constitutes the 'christian congregation' in the story and what constitutes a modern 'christian congregatiion'?
I'd like to take in, at least, Peg's perspective on this too.
In Message 20 Peg said God is the ultimate authority.
That should be something we all can agree on, right?
She hasn't really clarified who has the authority to make new laws or deem something a law from God in the New Covenant.
I have a couple ideas to work from. According to the story, the authority may be in 'the law and the prophets'. Within the story, the prophets constantly correct and critique the subtle, and not so subtle, variance of tradition. What do you guys think, do the prophets in the story have authority? Or just 'apostles'?
purpledawn writes:
weary writes:
Some ToRaH documents were forged supposedly.
Not sure what you mean by forged since our language is rather colorful sometimes.
Altered texts, forged documents, corrupted traditions ... these phrases should all suffice.
Within the story, Yirmiyahu states that burnt offerings and sacrafices were added to the ToRaH through some form of redaction on the part of Levite scribes. That is the premise of the story, right?
If so, I would just assume work from there.
I understand the different authors of the Torah.
I don't think Peg is up to addressing those possible issues.
Perhaps the documentary hypothysis was the event in question. It does support the story to an extent, but that seems like a bonus or whatever. Something seemingly tangible.
When we suggest that burnt offerings and sacrafices were implemented when the Father brought the Hebrew people out of Egypt, as opposed to a later time that was unauthorized, we divert from the plain text in the story (ie. we begin changing the story). I just want to know if we are going to do that or not.
Peg, what's your take for now too?
purpledawn writes:
weary writes:
This discussion is working off the premise that they are not clearly available. Correct?
That's what we're determining. Peg hasn't shown a clear list, IMO.
Peg, if you get a sec, can you tighten up a response to the question I present here. Something succint and salient please.
purpledawn writes:
weary writes:
So, is it fair to say we are working off the premise that a written law is required?
I don't know. Peg says there are Christian laws.
Peg, within our premise, where are we at here exactly? The first question at the top of this post may dictate the answer to this.
I'm curious to know in what form they reside.
Me too. Perhaps we can examine the texts referencing the new covenant and see if the form is disclosed. Besides Yirmiyahu, I know of some texts from Ezekiel that are employed
here in Pauline theology in refernce to the Ruach HaKodesh or 'set apart spirit'. We need to get the various references being considered within our premise into one group, so post 'em if ya got 'em I guess. One step at a time.
You may wanna grab a cup of coffee or something for this next bit. Maybe some Tylenol too. Some of the following may or may not prove to be off topic to an extent, but I'm throwin' it out there to see what sticks. In the story in the RCC texts, the evangelism of the apostles seems to have revolved around three main notions which may, or may not, tie into the new covenant somewhere along the lines ...
First, the apostles seem to speak of 'Hope'. When they do, it does not seem to me that they are referencing 'eternal life in ghost heaven for believers' or whatever it is I usually hear modern christians blather on about. The hope the Hebrews in the story refer to appears to be the idea that, what the Father had done to Yeshua already (ie. bodily resurrection), the Father would do to everyone later.
As you know, when we understand the culture of 1st century CE, we may easily understand why this Hope is so exclusive to anointed Ones or 'christians'. Some Yuhdeans believed in a bodily resurrection that would occur far in the future, and many Yuhdeans did not. Those outside Yuhdaism generally did not believe in a bodily resurrection at all.
Apparently, what
no one believed was that HaMashiach would come, get murdered, and then be resurrected before everyone else. Not even Yeshua's disciples are depicted as making this connection, which is likely why they desert Him. HaMashiach was supposed to kick everyone's ass and lead the Yuhdeans to victory over zee Romanz (lol - and everyone else who had oppressed them to, for that matter ...
Luke 1:71). Now, how was He gonna do that all mutilated on a torture stake?
This must be why they are depicted in
Mark 9:10 wondering wtf Yeshua means, since He cannot
possibly mean He is going to die ...
literally.
This idea also seems to come through loud and clear in Luke 24:
20-
21, they
had hoped (but no longer seemingly) ... and what did they hope for - that HaMashiach would redeem Yisrael, of course. In the fashion of ol' uncle Dave, theses Hebrews were waiting for Yeshua to take His position as true King. And so, as they did not understand anything in the story about a death at all (
John 20:9, Luke 24:
25,
26,
27), the beliefs of the followers of Yeshua are crushed as He is murdered before their very eyes.
So, in the story, it seems that the resurrection not only proves that the Father of the Anointed One lives, but also lends hope in each Covenant members own resurrection later. Note the wording of
Acts 4:2 and
Acts 17:32 - this seems to have been the central message of their evangelism (as well as Yeshua as HaMashiach and Yeshua as Judge, etc.). Paul also pipes in that belief in resurrection of the dead is absolutely required of believers (1st Corinthians 15:
12,
13,
14). Remember though, in the story, Paul is a Pharisee who only saw ghost jesus.
Nevertheless, this Hope in the resurrection of the dead appears to be the main reason Paul was in so much hot water in Acts. It was, after all, directly opposed to the beliefs of the ruling sect of Yuhdaism (
Acts 23:6,
Acts 24:15,
Acts 24:21, Acts 26:
6,
7,
8).
Moving on, the phrase 'a free gift' seems to be tossed around quite freely in today's evangelism, yet for the authorized apostles within the story, and Paul, the term seems to have had a different meaning. 'The Gift' appears to be nothing less than the Ruach HaKodesh as far as I can tell.
Yeshua is depicted employing
this term in reference to the Ruach HaKodesh in
John 4:10. Kefa seems to reference HaKodesh as 'The Gift' three times in Acts alone within the story (
2:38,
8:20,
11:17). Similarly, Luke is depicted employing the term in this way at
Acts 10:45, and Paul does so in
1st Timothy 4:14, and
2nd Timothy 1:6. The writer of Hebrews follows suit in
Hebrews 6:4.
Then we come to an interesting term ... 'The Promise'. Early in the story, the Father promises Abraham to bless the world through his seed, yet how this will be accomplished appears to remain ambiguous to an extent. Later in the story, it appears that Kefa may have answered this question for us within
Acts 2:33. This seems to be the same promise Yeshua makes reference to in
Luke 24:49 and in
Acts 3:26 it seems one may find that it is, in fact, the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham.
The Ruach HaKodesh appears to be further referenced as 'The Promise' in
Acts 2:39,
Galatians 3:14,
Ephesians 1:13 and
Ephesians 3:6. Also, in
Hebrews 9:15 it seems as though the author views us as receiving the Ruach HaKodesh as an inheritance from HaMashiach. If you note
Hebrews 9:16,
Hebrews 9:8, and, most notably Hebrews 11:
39-
40, you may find that HaKodesh is once again referred to as what was 'promised' and that this may likely be referring to the Ruach HaKodesh
now available, that may indeed
not have been available earlier in the story before Yeshua was murdered.
Yet, it seems as the Ruach HaKodesh is not simply the fulfillment of a promise in the story, but it also
acts as a promise of sorts ... a reminder of a more abundant salvation available perhaps. lol - maybe when bodies are transformed or New Yirusalem arrives (
Unveiling 21:2). The Ruach HaKodesh, by supposedly granting one power over the desires of a flesh set against the Father (
Romans 6:6), seems to be portrayed as breakin' us off a lil' slice of our transformed future, thus allowing us to begin living, already, the life of the world to come ... today.
Perhaps one catch though; that being, Covenant members no longer live selfishly at this point, but rather live HaMashiach style. Seems like, in this way, the Ruach HaKodesh is then a Promise itself. Not on an individual basis wherein we 'know we are going to heaven because we have the Spirit'. HaKodesh allowed those in Matthew 7:
22-
23 to toss demons and prophesy in HaMashiach's name, but it did not necessarily see them through the Judgment, and Hebrews 6:
4,
5,
6, Hebrews 10:
26-
27, and 2nd Peter 2:
20-
21 all appear to be establishing that HaKodesh is not a personal guarantee, but a global one.
Altogether leading me to believe the Father will not be mocked.
Please, feel free to critique and, up front, lil' attention was paid concerning extant dates with scripture texts or authorized apostleship concerning Paul.
purpledawn writes:
weary writes:
Are we starting with the apostle route?
1) That they had an obligation to establish written law ...
2) And the authority to perform this task for the Father?
That's as good as any.
How many authorized apostles actually speak throughout the church testament story and are we going to account for the extant dates or otherwise?
We will deal with Paul separately, since he is not listed as an authorized apostle within the church story and only met ghost jesus. Fair enough?
I don't know the path. That's what I'm asking for.
I'm with ya ... perhaps we may all learn together.
One Love
™ Version 4.2