Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What and Where are the Terms of the New Covenant?
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 61 of 94 (115206)
06-14-2004 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Abshalom
06-14-2004 4:10 PM


Re: Eternal Life vs Eternal Death
Hi Ab:
quote:
I cannot find any reference in the Hebrew bible to "eternal life."
Wherever the words "life" or "live" appear in the O.T., their definition means "eternal life". Same with "death", means "eternal death". BUT I have also clearly admitted that the O.T. CANNOT be understood without God's chosen mouthpiece - Paul. The questions you and Purple ask were designed by God to only be understood by the teaching of Paul.
quote:
Deuteronomy 27:26: Cursed be he that confirmeth not ALL the words of this law to do them.
The above verse plainly tells us the unbending demands of Law.
quote:
Also, in Message 53, I asked for specifics (in words directly attributed to Jesus) where he says that works of the Law and following specific directions He gave throughout Matthew and Luke are no longer requirements for entry into the Kingdom (as cited in the passages I provided).
There isn't any.
The abrogation of the works of the Law comes via interpretation. Jesus said "man shall live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God".
The most current words out of the mouth of God come through Paul.
Paul teaches us what "every word out of God's mouth" means.
Once and for all:
Only by interpretation can your questions be answered. There is no one verse that says everything that you want to hear. All of your questions have been answered - its just that you do not like the answers/or you disagree.
Acts 9 says God/Jesus chose Paul. Nothing in the Bible is going to contradict God/Jesus/Paul. If you or anyone rejects what Paul says - you are rejecting what God/Jesus says. Paul was a "Pharisee of the Pharisees" a Benjamite, raised at the feet of Gamaliel, 5 times he received 40 stripes save one at the hands of the Jews, all for preaching the gospel/way of faith, which is the New Covenant - the ONLY term of the New Covenant.
This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 06-14-2004 09:50 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Abshalom, posted 06-14-2004 4:10 PM Abshalom has not replied

  
wmscott
Member (Idle past 6247 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 62 of 94 (115479)
06-15-2004 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by purpledawn
06-14-2004 9:45 PM


Dear Purpledawn;
quote:
So isn't it the Mosaic laws that God will put in our hearts?
No, (Romans 10:4) "For Christ is the end of the Law," the Mosaic law was ended, it was the new law, the law of the Christ that was to be written on their hearts.
Wm Scott Anderson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by purpledawn, posted 06-14-2004 9:45 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by purpledawn, posted 06-15-2004 7:37 PM wmscott has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 63 of 94 (115530)
06-15-2004 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by wmscott
06-15-2004 5:33 PM


Read this on Romans and tell me what you think.

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by wmscott, posted 06-15-2004 5:33 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by wmscott, posted 06-16-2004 4:17 PM purpledawn has replied

  
wmscott
Member (Idle past 6247 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 64 of 94 (115809)
06-16-2004 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by purpledawn
06-15-2004 7:37 PM


Dear Purpledawn;
I read over the material you provided the link to, and found the whole premise in error. This kind of thing was warned about at, 2 Peter 3:15-16 "Paul according to the wisdom given him also wrote YOU, speaking about these things as he does also in all [his] letters. In them, however, are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unsteady are twisting, as [they do] also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction." The idea that Christians are still under the Torah or law, is in complete conflict with scripture. I see that they state on Romans 10:4
quote:
Christian translators have instead inserted the ambiguous phrase, "end of the law," to lend support to the false view that Paul taught that the Torah was done away with by Yeshua's work.
The verse contradicts them so they 'retranslate' the wording to mean something else, they are twisting scripture to fit their viewpoint. The Bible is very clear on Christ fulfilling or ending the law. Next they state;
quote:
Faith in Yeshua does not end the "law" (Romans 3:31, Matthew 5:17-21).
They cite two scriptures for their support which if you read just the cited part, seems to support them, but if you read the surrounding context, you see that the real meaning is just the opposite. (Romans 3:31) "Do we, then, abolish law by means of our faith? Never may that happen! On the contrary, we establish law." But what law is Paul talking about; (Romans 3:27) "Through what law? That of works? No indeed, but through the law of faith" Matthew 5:17 states "Do not think I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I came, not to destroy, but to fulfill;" Christ then goes on to explain that his followers would be held to a higher law of conduct. (Matthew 5:21-22) "whoever commits a murder will be accountable to the court of justice.' However, I say to YOU that everyone who continues wrathful with his brother will be accountable to the court of justice; but whoever addresses his brother with an unspeakable word of contempt will be accountable to the Supreme Court; whereas whoever says, 'You despicable fool!' will be liable to the fiery Gehenna." Christ fulfilled the Mosaic law and ended it and replace it with a new law, one written on hearts made up of righteous principles and standards rather than a detailed list of do's and don't.
The issue of whether or not Christians are to keep the Torah was raised in the Paul's day. (Acts 15:5) . "It is necessary to circumcise them and charge them to observe the law of Moses." Which is just what the web page you linked to is saying, the Bible gives as an answer to this question; (Acts 15:28-29) "For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to YOU, except these necessary things, to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication." The burden they didn't give them was that of having to follow the Mosaic law. Look at the list of necessary things, following the Torah isn't necessary.
You would be wise to read the book of Galatians, that congregation had a problem with this and some there thought that they needed to keep the Torah, look at the what Paul wrote them.
(Galatians 4:9-11) "how is it that YOU are turning back again to the weak and beggarly elementary things and want to slave for them over again? YOU are scrupulously observing days and months and seasons and years. I fear for YOU, that somehow I have toiled to no purpose respecting YOU".
(Galatians 4:21) "Tell me, YOU who want to be under law"
(Galatians 5:1) "Christ set us free. Therefore stand fast, and do not let yourselves be confined again in a yoke of slavery."
(Galatians 5:2-6) "See! I, Paul, am telling YOU that if YOU become circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to YOU. Moreover, I bear witness again to every man getting circumcised that he is under obligation to perform the whole Law. YOU are parted from Christ, whoever YOU are that try to be declared righteous by means of law; YOU have fallen away from his undeserved kindness. For our part we by spirit are eagerly waiting for the hoped-for righteousness as a result of faith. For as regards Christ Jesus neither circumcision is of any value nor is uncircumcision, but faith operating through love [is]."
The situation in the early Christian congregation was that the Jewish Christians were still keeping many of requirements of the law out of a life time of habit, and some of them felt the gentile Christians should too. But there was no requirement from God that they do this, the Jewish Christians were free to keep the Jewish traditions as long as they recognized that it was optional and did not lead to salvation which was only through Jesus.
Wm Scott Anderson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by purpledawn, posted 06-15-2004 7:37 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by purpledawn, posted 06-16-2004 11:15 PM wmscott has not replied
 Message 66 by purpledawn, posted 06-17-2004 11:08 AM wmscott has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 65 of 94 (115912)
06-16-2004 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by wmscott
06-16-2004 4:17 PM


Hey WmScott,
Glad you took the time to read the site.
2 Peter isn't considered to be written by Peter, so it loses some authority.
From what I have studied in the OT, they didn't twist the words. They actually brought Paul more in line with the teachings of Jesus, which were in line with the Jewish teachings of the time.
quote:
Christ fulfilled the Mosaic law and ended it and replace it with a new law, one written on hearts made up of righteous principles and standards rather than a detailed list of do's and don't.
Your principles and standards are still based on something. You aren't pulling them out of thin air.
Websters Dictionary
Principle: 2. a fundamental truth, law, etc., upon which others are based. 4. a rule of conduct, such rules collectively, adherence to them
Standard: 2. something established as a rule or basis of comparison in measuring or judging quantity, quality, value, etc. 3. a usage or practice that is generally accepted or followed; criterion
There are two different things going on here. 1. There is the faith that gets you eternal salvation, a place in the world to come, etc. Great, that's the afterlife 2. Now for the current life: For a group of people to live as a nation, village, group, etc. you need guidelines for accepted civilized behavior. Even Paul had to come up with rules for behavior in church services.
If you look at the Mosaic laws you will find a lot of them have become a part of our legal and medical systems. The sacrifical system went away after the temple was destroyed anyway.
IMPO the "fence" they kept adding around the Torah is what they became a slave to. The oral law kept adding so no one would accidently break one of the written rules. Those rules got ridiculous. (Of course the more the people had to sacrifice the more the Levites received.)
So are Christians only basing their guidelines on the behavioral teachings that Jesus brought forward? In many cases it says he continued to teach, but we don't know what he said in those cases.
So what are the righteous principles that make up the Law of Christ?

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by wmscott, posted 06-16-2004 4:17 PM wmscott has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 66 of 94 (116019)
06-17-2004 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by wmscott
06-16-2004 4:17 PM


I rushed the earlier answer. I was trying to get done before the power went out. Hopefully this one makes more sense.
Circumcision is part of the Abrahamic Covenant which is everlasting and still applicable to his descendants. Not meant for Gentiles.
I agree that the Mosaic laws are not the means to eternal life. They never were. They are however the laws of the Jewish Nation and any alien who wished to live among them was subject to those rules. God covered that on several occasions.
Nu 15:29
'You shall have one law for him who does anything unintentionally, for him who is native among the sons of Israel and for the alien who sojourns among them.
Example: When I move to a new state, I am subject to their laws. I visit another place of worship, I am subject to their rules of conduct and worship or at least the minimum to respect their ways. Join the military and again I am subject to their rules.
So while the Gentiles are not in general bound by the Mosaic laws, if Gentiles wish to worship within Jewish synagogues or live within the Jewish community, then they would fall under those rules. Again this has nothing to do with eternal life, but temporal life.
Hence the point on Yashanet stating that the minimum requirements set down for the Gentiles were so they could associate with the Jews without offending as they learn the rules of the community.
If the Gentile Christians were not living within the Jewish community, then they would need their own rules of conduct and worship. Again this has nothing to do with eternal life.
As societies grow, sometimes the original purpose of a standard are lost. Some Jews felt one had to be circumcised to be part of the Jewish community. There are churches today that say you must be baptized (not sprinkled) to be saved, etc. The Jerusalem church held that the Gentiles did not need to be circumcised.
The laws of Moses included religious, civil, legal, and health laws. Even during the time of Jesus, the Jews were allowed to govern themselves. Religion today doesn't legally govern the temporal life of the people.
There will always be people within a faith that keep the rules of right behavior for the wrong reasons. As they grow in their spirituality that should change.
Separate what is necessary for eternal life and what is necessary for temporal harmony within a group or nation.

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by wmscott, posted 06-16-2004 4:17 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by wmscott, posted 06-18-2004 6:42 PM purpledawn has replied

  
wmscott
Member (Idle past 6247 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 67 of 94 (116560)
06-18-2004 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by purpledawn
06-17-2004 11:08 AM


Abrahamic Covenant ended with the conversion of Cornelius
Dear Purpledawn;
quote:
Circumcision is part of the Abrahamic Covenant which is everlasting and still applicable to his descendants. Not meant for Gentiles.
No, the Abrahamic Covenant was ended in about 36 AD with the conversion of Cornelius the first gentile into the Christian faith. The Abaramic Covenant was for the Jews to become followers of the messiah and become his spirit anointed followers and rule as kings and priests in heaven with Jesus.
(Exodus 19:6)" And YOU yourselves will become to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words that you are to say to the sons of Israel."
(1 Peter 2:9) "But YOU are "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for special possession, that YOU should declare abroad the excellencies" of the one that called YOU out of darkness into his wonderful light."
(Revelation 20:6) "Happy and holy is anyone having part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no authority, but they will be priests of God and of the Christ, and will rule as kings with him for the thousand years."
When gentiles became anointed with holy spirit, they became part of Abraham's seed just like the Jews and received the promises made to the Jews.
(Galatians 3:28-29) "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor freeman, there is neither male nor female; for YOU are all one [person] in union with Christ Jesus. Moreover, if YOU belong to Christ, YOU are really Abraham's seed, heirs with reference to a promise."
Now the law ended with the death of Jesus Christ as the sacrifice for our sins as pictured by the sacrifices made under the law.
(Galatians 3:19-25) "Why, then, the Law? It was added to make transgressions manifest, until the seed should arrive to whom the promise had been made; . . . Consequently the Law has become our tutor leading to Christ, that we might be declared righteous due to faith. But now that the faith has arrived, we are no longer under a tutor."
(Colossians 2:13-14) "He kindly forgave us all our trespasses and blotted out the handwritten document against us, which consisted of decrees and which was in opposition to us; and He has taken it out of the way by nailing it to the torture stake."
The law covenant ended with Christ's death as shown by the above scripture and many others, now the Abrahamic Covenant continued for another three and half years after the law ended. This is shown in the prophecy of seventy weeks in the book of Daniel. The weeks are each made of seven year long 'days' and ran from the order to rebuild Jerusalem until the end of the Abrahamic Covenant. The messiah was to appear after 7+62 or 69 weeks and was to end sacrifices by becoming the last sacrifice, the covenant was to be kept for a another half week after his death or three and half years after Christ died which would bring us up to the time when gentiles were first allowed to be come Christians without first having to be circumcised proselytes.
(Daniel 9:24-27) "There are seventy weeks that have been determined upon your people and upon your holy city, in order to terminate the transgression, and to finish off sin, and to make atonement for error, and to bring in righteousness for times indefinite, . . And you should know and have the insight [that] from the going forth of [the] word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah [the] Leader, there will be seven weeks, also sixty-two weeks. . . . "And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah will be cut off, with nothing for himself. . . . "And he must keep [the] covenant in force for the many for one week; and at the half of the week he will cause sacrifice and gift offering to cease."
Now since the law covenant ended at the 69th and half week when the Messiah died, it is the Abrahamic Covenant that ends on the end of the 70th week as also shown by Gentiles becoming part of Abraham's seed and receiving promises that the covenant had previously been reserved for the Jews.
quote:
2 Peter isn't considered to be written by Peter, so it loses some authority.
It is of course impossible for 2 Peter to be written by someone else since it is an inspired book and God hates liars and would never allow for such a deception to become part of his inspired word. The book of 2 Peter is found in the earliest collections of Bible books and is obviously part of the Bible based on it's content. The difference in style between first and second Peter is due to the fact the secretary Peter used to write the first book is not mentioned as being used in writing the second.
quote:
So what are the righteous principles that make up the Law of Christ?
The Law of the Christ is the law of love, our actions are to be guided by love for God and our fellow man. Since the whole Mosaic law code Jesus summed up saying by saying these two commands were the greatest commands, much of the law is based on the same principles. So while we are not commanded to keep the rules of the law, the greatest commandments behind it are the Law of the Christ. Beyond treating others as we would want to be treated, specific commands are laid out in the NT such in Acts and in Paul's letters to the congregations. All of the commands should be obvious if one knew God well already, such as not using idols which God repeatedly condemned many times. These things are all part of Loving God and our neighbor. Many of the principles run parallel to commands found in the old law code, that is to be expected because they are both from the same author, but we are not under the law. Since the new covenant was to be written on hearts rather than on stone tablets, it is not spelled out like the old law was, it is a higher law of being righteous rather than just acting righteous. Under the new covenant, just wanting or thinking about doing wickedness was wrong.
Sincerely yours; Wm Scott Anderson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by purpledawn, posted 06-17-2004 11:08 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by purpledawn, posted 06-18-2004 8:33 PM wmscott has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 68 of 94 (116578)
06-18-2004 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by wmscott
06-18-2004 6:42 PM


Re: Abrahamic Covenant ended with the conversion of Cornelius
quote:
No, the Abrahamic Covenant was ended in about 36 AD with the conversion of Cornelius the first gentile into the Christian faith. The Abaramic Covenant was for the Jews to become followers of the messiah and become his spirit anointed followers and rule as kings and priests in heaven with Jesus.
Genesis 17:7
"I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you.
So God didn't keep his word?
Where does God tell Abraham the covenant was for the Hebrews to become followers of the messiah and become his spirit anointed followers?
quote:
(Exodus 19:6)" And YOU yourselves will become to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words that you are to say to the sons of Israel."
This was stated at the time of the Mosaic Covenant. No mention of Abraham or the messiah.
quote:
When gentiles became anointed with holy spirit, they became part of Abraham's seed just like the Jews and received the promises made to the Jews.
According to Paul who is not the messiah.
Besides, if the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants are ended as you say, then what promises are left? The promises were part of the covenants.

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by wmscott, posted 06-18-2004 6:42 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by wmscott, posted 06-19-2004 6:45 PM purpledawn has replied

  
wmscott
Member (Idle past 6247 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 69 of 94 (116702)
06-19-2004 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by purpledawn
06-18-2004 8:33 PM


Re: Abrahamic Covenant ended with the conversion of Cornelius
Dear Purpledawn;
quote:
Genesis 17:7"I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you." So God didn't keep his word?
Covenants are an agreement or contract between two parties, the contract is broken if one of the parties fails to abide by its terms and the Jews rejected the Messiah and so Jehovah rejected them. Part of the Abrahamic covenant was for the Jews to have the promised land, but they lost it because they failed to remain faithful to the covenants they had with God. The Abrahamic covenant could have ended with the death of the Messiah, but God kept it in force for another three and a half years, and even then of the promises, only the exclusive feature for Jews was done away with. The purpose of the Abrahamic covenant was for all the families of the earth to be able to bless themselves by means of the Jews, this was fulfilled in Jesus Christ's kingdom which is the means of applying the blessing to mankind, the covenant also had fulfilled its purpose in regard to the Jews but has a role with true Christians who are spiritual Jews. The fact that from the very beginning Abraham was told that the covenant would result in a blessing to all the families of the earth, pointed out that the exclusiveness of the covenant was only for a period of time. Other parts of the covenant are forever such as the blessings and Jehovah would always be their God.
quote:
Where does God tell Abraham the covenant was for the Hebrews to become followers of the messiah and become his spirit anointed followers?
This point is progressively revealed in the Bible, the out working of the sacred secret. But if Abraham was perceptive he may have understood some of what was to be later revealed. God told Abraham, (Genesis 22:18) "And by means of your seed all nations of the earth will certainly bless themselves due to the fact that you have listened to my voice.'" and how would the nations bless themselves by means of Abraham's' 'seed' and what was this 'seed'?
Seed can just mean descendants, but a further meaning was included here and Abraham could have picked up on this if he recalled the account that was later recorded at; Genesis 3:14-15 "And Jehovah God proceeded to say to the serpent: . . . I shall put enmity between you and the woman and between your seed and her seed. He will bruise you in the head and you will bruise him in the heel." Abraham would have known of this account since he would have had to passed on the information, and here in this account we find two seeds are mentioned. The seed of the woman who would kill the devil and who was 'bruised in the heel' by the devil, is of course Jesus Christ who will destroy satan and suffered a bruise when he died on earth. The woman is God's heavenly organization or New Jerusalem which is how Jesus is the woman's seed.
(Galatians 4:26) But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.
(Revelation 12:1) And a great sign was seen in heaven, a woman arrayed with the sun, and the moon was beneath her feet, and on her head was a crown of twelve stars,
Sorry for the detour into some of these deeper points, but with what was said to Abraham and what was said earlier, he may have seen some of what was to come that was later revealed in scripture. The blessing of the nations is repeatedly referred to in the scriptures, such as here in this verse.
(Zechariah 8:23) "This is what Jehovah of armies has said, 'It will be in those days that ten men out of all the languages of the nations will take hold, yes, they will actually take hold of the skirt of a man who is a Jew, saying: "We will go with YOU people, for we have heard [that] God is with YOU people."'"
Also it was stated that people from the nations becoming Christians was how the Abrahamic blessing would be poured out.
(Galatians 3:8) "Now the Scripture, seeing in advance that God would declare people of the nations righteous due to faith, declared the good news beforehand to Abraham, namely: "By means of you all the nations will be blessed."
And a few verses later we are told that Christ is the seed of Abraham which fits with what was said in Genesis 3:14-15.
(Galatians 3:16-17) "Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. It says, not: "And to seeds," as in the case of many such, but as in the case of one: "And to your seed," who is Christ. Further, I say this: As to the covenant previously validated by God, the Law that has come into being four hundred and thirty years later does not invalidate it, so as to abolish the promise." See, the promises remain.
So the purpose of the Abrahamic Covenant was to lead the Jews to Christ who was Abraham's seed for the blessing of the nations. Abraham did not know the full extent of the fulfillment of the promises and how it would all take place, but he apparently did have some understanding since he is said to have seen them from afar.
(Hebrews 11:8-16) "By faith Abraham, . . . In faith all these died, although they did not get the [fulfillment of the] promises, but they saw them afar off and welcomed them and publicly declared that they were strangers and temporary residents in the land. . . . But now they are reaching out for a better [place], that is, one belonging to heaven. Hence God is not ashamed of them, to be called upon as their God, for he has made a city ready for them."
Under your theory Jews would still need to be circumcised because of the Abrahamic Covenant still being in effect, but did the early Christians believe or teach that? No they did not, notice what this scripture states. (Acts 16:1-3) "Timothy, the son of a believing Jewish woman but of a Greek father, and he was well reported on by the brothers in Lystra and Iconium. Paul expressed the desire for this man to go out with him, and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews that were in those places, for one and all knew that his father was a Greek." Notice why Paul circumcised Timothy, because the Jews knew he had a Greek father, Paul didn't want to stumble them. No mention is made of the Abrahamic covenant as being the reason Paul circumcised Timothy, because it had already ended.
I had stated and you replied.
quote:
"When gentiles became anointed with holy spirit, they became part of Abraham's seed just like the Jews and received the promises made to the Jews." -According to Paul who is not the messiah. Besides, if the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants are ended as you say, then what promises are left? The promises were part of the covenants.
If you don't listen to Paul how can you be a christian? Paul's words settle the matter since rejection of the writings of Paul would pretty much be a rejection of christianity. The ending of the covenants didn't end the promises since the old covenants were replaced by the new covenant which picked up where the old ones left off. Paul stated that the gentile Christians became part of Abraham's seed, joint heirs with Christ and were heirs to the promised blessings, so while the old covenants ended the promises of the blessings remain.
(Galatians 3:28-29) "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor freeman, there is neither male nor female; for YOU are all one [person] in union with Christ Jesus. Moreover, if YOU belong to Christ, YOU are really Abraham's seed, heirs with reference to a promise."
So while the Abrahamic Covenant ended for the Jews it's promises continued on for the Christians who became spiritual israel and Abraham's seed and they would see the final out working of the fulfillment of the covenant. So while the Covenant ended for the Jews, it continued on for Christians in a modified form under the new Covenant which is how the covenant lasts forever.
Sincerely yours; Wm Scott Anderson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by purpledawn, posted 06-18-2004 8:33 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by purpledawn, posted 06-19-2004 9:18 PM wmscott has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 70 of 94 (116741)
06-19-2004 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by wmscott
06-19-2004 6:45 PM


Re: Abrahamic Covenant ended with the conversion of Cornelius
You are right! In the way that you and WT present Paul I do not listen to him. He makes some good points on behavior, but Paul is an evangelist and pretty much does what is necessary to make a sale.
Your whole presentation makes God look untrustworthy.
I don't buy that God dumped the Jews.
As you and WT so eloquently put it, Paul declared the beginning of the New Covenant, Paul declared an end to the the previous covenants, and Paul declared that the Gentiles can inherit from Abraham.
So does Christianity follow Paul or Christ? (rhetorical question)
Supposedly I should be a Christian because I have faith in Jesus (the annointed one, Christ), not Paul. I should have faith in God, not Paul. The Holy Spirit is supposed to teach us, not Paul.
The fruit of the spirit doesn't include believing Paul. I don't have to believe what Paul says or teaches to have right behavior or faith in God.
So you both have shown that the new covenant wasn't presented by Jesus, but was brought forth by Paul.
Fascinating!

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by wmscott, posted 06-19-2004 6:45 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by jar, posted 06-19-2004 9:32 PM purpledawn has replied
 Message 73 by wmscott, posted 06-20-2004 9:34 AM purpledawn has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 71 of 94 (116744)
06-19-2004 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by purpledawn
06-19-2004 9:18 PM


I guess that is why there are a few of us
that see it as a personal covenant just between GOD and the individual.
God said, "Love me" and "Love others as you love yourselves".

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by purpledawn, posted 06-19-2004 9:18 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by purpledawn, posted 06-19-2004 10:46 PM jar has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 72 of 94 (116766)
06-19-2004 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by jar
06-19-2004 9:32 PM


Re: I guess that is why there are a few of us
Yep, group thing definitely didn't work for the Hebrews.

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by jar, posted 06-19-2004 9:32 PM jar has not replied

  
wmscott
Member (Idle past 6247 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 73 of 94 (116853)
06-20-2004 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by purpledawn
06-19-2004 9:18 PM


New Covenant from Christ not Paul
Dear Purpledawn;
quote:
Paul declared the beginning of the New Covenant, Paul declared an end to the previous covenants, and Paul declared that the Gentiles can inherit from Abraham. . . . I have faith in Jesus (the annointed one, Christ), not Paul.
Actually Jesus inaugurated the New Covenant, not Paul. Paul merely explained the teaching.
(Luke 22:20) This cup means the new covenant by virtue of my blood, which is to be poured out in YOUR behalf."
Christ didn't just make the New Covenant on his own initiative, it had been prophesied that there would be a New Covenant in the OT.
(Jeremiah 31:31) "Look! There are days coming," is the utterance of Jehovah, "and I will conclude with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant;"
quote:
I don't buy that God dumped the Jews.
Jesus stated that it would happen.
(Matthew 23:37-38) "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the killer of the prophets and stoner of those sent forth to her,how often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks together under her wings! But YOU people did not want it. Look! YOUR house is abandoned to YOU."
(Matthew 21:42-43) "Jesus said to them: "Did YOU never read in the Scriptures, 'The stone that the builders rejected is the one that has become the chief cornerstone. From Jehovah this has come to be, and it is marvelous in our eyes'? This is why I say to YOU, The kingdom of God will be taken from YOU and be given to a nation producing its fruits."
Because the Jews as a group, rejected Jesus as the messiah, they lost their favored standing with God. God took his favor from the Jews and gave it to a new nation, spiritual Israel the Christian congregation. While the Jews as a group lost Jehovah's blessing, many individual Jews became Christians and continued to receive it. Today Jews have no special standing before God, it they to receive his favor, they need to join the new nation of spiritual Israel, True Christianity.
You can't reject the words of Paul, what he wrote wouldn't be in the Bible if it wasn't in harmony with the rest of scripture. There was no conflict over doctrine among the writers of the NT, they all speak in agreement. Look at what Peter said about the things written by Paul.
(2 Peter 3:15-16) "Paul according to the wisdom given him also wrote YOU, speaking about these things as he does also in all [his] letters. In them, however, are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unsteady are twisting, as [they do] also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.
Peter stated that what Paul had written was part of the scriptures, inspired by God scriptures, so Peter was stating Paul taught in perfect harmony. Paul did have a writing style that can be hard to understand and many today still twist it, but he wrote under holy spirit so what he wrote is part of the word of God and carries divine backing.
Sincerely yours; Wm Scott Anderson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by purpledawn, posted 06-19-2004 9:18 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by purpledawn, posted 06-20-2004 12:08 PM wmscott has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 74 of 94 (116863)
06-20-2004 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by wmscott
06-20-2004 9:34 AM


Re: New Covenant from Christ not Paul
quote:
(Luke 22:20) This cup means the new covenant by virtue of my blood, which is to be poured out in YOUR behalf."
Now you getting back to where we started on this thread.
Mark and Matthew don't say the word new; only Luke who worked with Paul. Book of Luke is considered to be written after the letters of Paul. See Paul's influence again.
quote:
(Jeremiah 31:31) "Look! There are days coming," is the utterance of Jehovah, "and I will conclude with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant;"
Notice "I will" and "with the house of Israel and the house of Judah". No ifs and nothing about accepting the messiah.
Jeremiah 31:33-34
..."I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts, I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the Lord. "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more."
If the New Covenant you speak of is this one, then there would be no need for Paul. (No longer will a man teach his neighbor...)
God will forgive and forget. Didn't say he would cast them aside for their sins.
And God continues....
Jeremiah 31:35-37
This is what the Lord says, he who appoints the sun to shine by day, who decrees the moon and stars to shine by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar--the Lord Almighty is his name: "only if these decrees vanish from my sight," declares the Lord, "will the descendants of Israel ever cease to be a nation before me."
This is what the Lord says; "only if the heavens above can be measured and the foundations of the earth below be searched out will I reject all the descendants of Israel because of all they have done," declares the Lord.
I don't think moon and stars stopped shining after the death of Christ and I don't think they were able to measure the heavens or search the foundations of the earth. I still see the moon and stars shinging today. Can we measure the heavens or search the foundations of the earth today?
quote:
You can't reject the words of Paul, what he wrote wouldn't be in the Bible if it wasn't in harmony with the rest of scripture.
I'm rejecting your presentation of Paul because you present him in a way that does contradict the OT.
Yashanet (the one you think twists Paul's teachings) does very well at keeping Paul more in line with God's earlier promises. They don't present God as going against his earlier promises.
Matthew Study
quote:
Because the Jews as a group, rejected Jesus as the messiah,
That's as bad as the polls I see on the news about whatever % of Americans are happy with the U.S. President or unhappy etc. Not once have I ever been asked about how I feel about what any President is doing.
Was Jesus able to talk with every single Jew during his ministry? Did every single Jew see all the miracles?
quote:
(2 Peter 3:15-16) "Paul according to the wisdom given him also wrote YOU, speaking about these things as he does also in all [his] letters. In them, however, are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unsteady are twisting, as [they do] also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.
Paul's letters would not have been considered Scripture within his lifetime. By Scripture I mean those things that are cannonized. They may have been considered "writings", but if Peter means true Scripture, then this was not written during the time of Paul.
quote:
Paul did have a writing style that can be hard to understand and many today still twist it
The question is, which twist is the right twist?

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by wmscott, posted 06-20-2004 9:34 AM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by wmscott, posted 06-21-2004 8:40 PM purpledawn has replied

  
wmscott
Member (Idle past 6247 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 75 of 94 (117300)
06-21-2004 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by purpledawn
06-20-2004 12:08 PM


Re: New Covenant from Christ not Paul
Dear Purpledawn;
quote:
Mark and Matthew don't say the word new; only Luke who worked with Paul. Book of Luke is considered to be written after the letters of Paul. See Paul's influence again.
To maintain your argument you are rejecting more and more of the Bible, so far you have rejected all the words of Paul, probably the book of James because he refers to the writings of Paul as scripture and now you reject Luke as well. Luke also wrote the book of Acts so I guess you reject that book as well, that doesn't leave much of the NT that you accept as being inspired by God. (Mark by the way was a close associate and traveling companion of Paul). I accept all of the Bible as being the inspired word of God. The accounts in Matthew and Mark are parallel accounts of the same event described in Luke, while they don't use the word new, they both describe Jesus speaking of a covenant which didn't exist before hence it is a new covenant.
(Matthew 26:28) "this means my 'blood of the covenant,' which is to be poured out in behalf of many for forgiveness of sins."
(Mark 14:24) "This means my 'blood of the covenant,' which is to be poured out in behalf of many."
Do you wish to reject Matthew and Mark now too? So your objection to the word new is frivolous. Jesus mediated a new covenant, the one spoken of at; (Jeremiah 31:31) " I will conclude with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant;" Moses warned the Israelites right from the very beginning what would happen if they failed to keep the covenant.
(Deuteronomy 29:24-28) "'Why did Jehovah do like this to this land? Why the heat of this great anger?' Then they will have to say, 'It was because they abandoned the covenant of Jehovah the God of their forefathers, which he concluded with them when he brought them out of the land of Egypt. And they proceeded to go and serve other gods and to bow down to them, gods that they had not known and he had not apportioned to them. Then Jehovah's anger blazed against that land by bringing upon it the whole malediction written in this book. Hence Jehovah uprooted them from off their soil in anger and rage and great indignation and threw them into another land as at this day.'
Now that was just a warning, here is what he told Ezekiel.
(Ezekiel 16:59-60) "For this is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah has said, 'I also must do with you just as you have done, because you despised the oath in breaking [my] covenant. And I, I myself, must remember my covenant with you in the days of your youth, and I must establish for you an indefinitely lasting covenant."
The Israelites were to be punished by being deported off land because they had broken the covenant. The law covenant continued in effect for sometime after this, but notice Jehovah's intention to establish or create a new lasting covenant. Both of the prophets Ezekiel and Jeremiah referred to the coming new covenant that would be a replacement for the old covenant. (Jeremiah 31:31)
quote:
(Jeremiah 31:31) "Look! There are days coming," is the utterance of Jehovah, "and I will conclude with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant;"-Notice "I will" and "with the house of Israel and the house of Judah". No ifs and nothing about accepting the messiah.
Jehovah's covenants are always dependant on obedience, the law covenant was and so is the New Covenant. We can not reject Jesus who mediated the New Covenant with his own blood and still expect to partake of the covenant's blessings. Remember the warning example of those who rejected Moses the mediator of the old covenant.
quote:
Jeremiah 31:33-34"I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts, I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,"-If the New Covenant you speak of is this one, then there would be no need for Paul. (No longer will a man teach his neighbor...)
We are still waiting for the day when this will be true, it hasn't come to pass yet so we still need people like Paul. The New Covenant is going to bring this about through the Messianic Kingdom when Christ takes control of the earth and we see the fulfillment of the meek inheriting the earth.
quote:
Jeremiah 31:35-37 This is what the Lord says, he who appoints the sun to shine by day, who decrees the moon and stars to shine by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar--the Lord Almighty is his name: "only if these decrees vanish from my sight," declares the Lord, "will the descendants of Israel ever cease to be a nation before me."
Jehovah is saying that he will always live up to his side of the covenant, but that was never the problem now was it. (Matthew 21:43) " This is why I say to YOU, The kingdom of God will be taken from YOU and be given to a nation producing its fruits." As a people the Jews failed to live up to the covenant as demonstrated by their rejection of the Messiah, so as a group they were rejected. But individuals who accepted Jesus were accepted into the New Covenant, and they received the blessings of Jehovah as part of 'spiritual Israel' that replaced fleshly Israel.
quote:
(2 Peter 3:15-16) "Paul . . . wrote YOU, . . . , which the untaught and unsteady are twisting, as [they do] also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction." -Paul's letters would not have been considered Scripture within his lifetime. By Scripture I mean those things that are cannonized. They may have been considered "writings", but if Peter means true Scripture, then this was not written during the time of Paul.
Peter used the word Scripture, and by that he meant part of the inspired word of God. One of the gifts of the spirit that they had then was the ability to discern directly by miraculous use of the holy spirit whether or not something was inspired or not. (1 Corinthians 12:10) "discernment of inspired utterances" So it was known immediately what was inspired and what was not and Peter stated that the letters of Paul were inspired. So there is not doubt about the inspired ness of what Paul wrote, we have Peter telling us so under divine inspiration in the Bible.
Sincerely yours; Wm Scott Anderson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by purpledawn, posted 06-20-2004 12:08 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by purpledawn, posted 06-22-2004 10:24 AM wmscott has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024