What and Where are the Terms of the New Covenant?

Wait, wait, wait! I was busy. I want to take a shot at this!I'm with Abshalom. The New Law is found in Matthew 5. You mentioned that maybe it was sort of a "renewal." Very good. That is exactly what Yeshua said."I did not come to abolish the Law, but to make it complete (Gr. pleroo)."I'm borrowing that translation from Irenaeus, in Against Heresies in AD 185, which was written in the same Greek that the Gospels were. He used the word pleroo as though it meant expand, fill up, or blow up (as in a balloon). It was very interesting reading his description of Matthew 5, because he was obviously reading it a lot different than I was. It sure made sense his way, though.After saying that he had come to expand or complete the law, Yeshua went on to explain exactly what he meant. Used to be you were supposed to make vows and fulfill them. Now, however, you are supposed to fulfill your every word, so making vows is unnecessary and even evil. Used to be, only murder was forbidden, but now improper anger would be judged. Used to be, only adultery was forbidden, but now even the thoughts were to be pure.This was the new law. It could be lived out, because Yeshua would be giving his Spirit to every person. John the Baptizer described that, saying, "I baptize you with water, but there is one coming who will baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire."As far as confirming it, he confirmed it at the last supper, which is where his followers agreed to it. He said, "This is the new covenant in my blood, which is shed for you and for all men, so that sins may be remitted." The apostles then drank from that cup, agreeing to the new covenant that they barely understood.It's unfortunate, though, in my opinion, that you want that covenant from the mouth of Yeshua, unless you just are looking for proof. He gave the message of the covenant to those apostles, and he said that those who receive his messengers received him and those who rejected his messengers rejected him. The description of the covenant was left with them, and they gave the Lord's Supper to the church so that it would confirm the covenant week by week, remembering it until he came again.I hope that helps. I would be happy to look at this further with you, as I've not thought about it so directly until you asked.

Well, it might go along with the Jewish meaning, but it doesn't go very well with the rest of Matthew 5, where the expansion of the Law as taught by Yeshua led to a command not to make vows, in contradiction to "what was said." Right, it's all secondhand, anyway. We don't really have anything Yeshua said or did, just what he "supposedly" said or did, based on what the apostles said about him. It can be argued that none of the Gospels were written by apostles, but it doesn't matter. They were chosen by the churches that were started by the apostles, and thus they represent the apostles' word about Yeshua.And those Gospels say he sent his apostles with the statement that people received or rejected him based on whether they received or rejected the apostles.So there really is no "going back to the originator." No, but the other covenants were ratified with blood, and Mark and Matthew do both say "the covenant in my blood." That makes it a new covenant.Why are you ignoring the one that contradicts your position, anyway? See the rest of Matthew 5 (he purposely contradicts Moses' statements about divorce, and later he says those statements were only given for the hardness of the Jews' hearts; he purposely negates the command about vows; etc.). See his behavior concerning the Sabbath. See his statements about being Lord of the Sabbath. See the fact that the Jews had him killed.Apparently, just about everything was new.

I'm working from Matt 10:40 and Jn 13:20. It doesn't say their message, it says them. That seems to fit pretty well with the earlier part of Matt 10, where he sends the disciples out, and they are told to reject the towns that won't receive them. The context seems to be putting them up in their houses, and Yeshua says, "...whoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words..."The two things go hand in hand there. It's personal as well as having to do with the message. I don't think the other two contradict me. When Yeshua says, "This is the covenant in my blood," there is no necessary reason for him to say new, even if he meant new.These two sentences do not contradict:1. This is a covenant.
2. This is a new covenant.However, you are saying it is not a new covenant, therefore you are choosing to contradict the one that says it is new.Not only am I not contradicting anything, it seems more likely than not that when Yeshua says, "This is the covenant in my blood," that he is not referring to a previous covenant established by the blood of a bull. It may not be certain that he was instituting a new covenant by saying this, but it is likely. And since one of the Gospels does say new, it is all the more likely.In fact, the case is completely settled by authorship. The fact is, Yeshua didn't write the Gospels. He is quoted in them. The people who put out the Gospels thought they were referring to a new covenant. Really, that doesn't leave it open to discussion. We can ask why they thought that, and we can disagree with them, but we can hardly say Yeshua wasn't referring to a new covenant. You made this point repeatedly. I don't disagree with it in some instances, but I don't think it's relevant. The description Yeshua gives of hades in the story of Lazarus and the rich man is taken almost verbatim out of the Book of Enoch. Granted, much of what Yeshua says was not first heard from his mouth. I don't see where that changes anything.Across the board, his teachings were pretty radically different than a straightforward reading of the old Mosaic covenant. So the Pharisees took a figurative approach to much of the Law, too. That's not really a big deal, and if, as I would believe, God is in the habit of helping people learn his will, it's not surprising that early Pharisaic teaching and Yeshua's teachings overlap in places.Nonetheless, no matter how many of the new laws of the New Covenant were known before Yeshua taught them in human flesh, the fact remains that there is a drastic newness to the things he taught. This, combined with the ultimate point of the New Covenant, that God would give his Spirit to all his followers, makes plenty of explanation for why it is a New Covenant, and fits quite well with both Ezekiel and Jeremiah's descriptions of the coming New Covenant. The central point of the giving of the Spirit is not missed in the Gospels, where it's mentioned at the beginning by John the Baptizer and at the end by Yeshua himself.Just for the record, I understand why they made that list on the link you gave, and I'm glad they made such a list, but I only agree that about half to two-thirds of them are similar enough to be the same teaching. It was new enough to get him killed!It's funny, I read a book that blamed Yeshua for purposely bringing the wrath of the Pharisees down on himself. It accuses him of violating the traditions of the elders, the Law itself, and the Sabbath, and of purposely flaunting his violations. He references both the Law and the Talmud. I wish I could remember what the book was called. Now here you are telling me that basically his views on the Sabbath were at least somewhat normal.The book pointed out that healing on the Sabbath would have been overlooked had Yeshua simply spoken to those he healed. It was touching the person being healed that led to his problems, and he touched lepers as well as others, doing it in front of the synagogue elders, provoking a response from them. Touching lepers is clearly proscribed in the Law.I think there was an obvious difference in the approach to God prescribed by the Law and the approach to God Yeshua lived out on earth. I don't think the places where Yeshua's approach overlapped with some Pharisaic teaching changes that. The overlap is irrelevant.

In Ezekiel I was speaking of 11:17-20. I thought it more directly talked about making a new covenant with them. Nonetheless, it is the type of description I was talking about.As for the rest of your post, I'm happy to leave it there. I rest my case, as I think it stands even with your answers, and I'm having trouble thinking of who might make any practical use of anything we would further discuss.