ECCLESIASTIC COMMONWEALTH COMMUNITY
ECCLESIASTIC COMMONWEALTH COMMUNITY
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 His Ecclesia
 The New Covenant
 What is the New Covenant?
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic 
Page: of 6

Manuel
Advanced Member

USA
762 Posts

Posted - 21 Jul 2015 :  08:33:53  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The Covenants of the gods
COG
"The Covenants of the gods" is a revolutionary perspective unveiling a unique apology of the prophets and their purpose. It examines the contractual nature of the governments of men through a progression of legal precepts, past and present, their context in history and language, and their relationship to the ancient Biblical texts.

Cecil B. DeMille asked in the movie “The Ten Commandments, “Are men the property of the state? Or are they free souls under God? This same battle continues throughout the world.”

The vanity inclines man to blame others for his undesirable state, “but the slothful shall be under tribute.” If you want to be set free then you must want to know the whole truth.

http://www.hisholychurch.org/media/publications/COGprint.pdf

Blessings,
Manny
Go to Top of Page

Caleb
Advanced Member

Philippines
209 Posts

Posted - 23 Jul 2015 :  11:28:51  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
James,

You have once again torn down and left no clarity in place of what you have deliberately confused. I cited Exodus 19, where it is unarguable that a Covenant is being established. I claimed that THIS was the Old Covenant.

You said No, No, No, that it was only the reaffirmation of the Covenant with Abraham, which is the New Covenant, despite the fact that you could not point to a single thing that links Exodus 19 to the Covenant with Abraham.

You then failed to offer a similar passage that instituted the Mosaic Law as the Old Covenant, since you claim that Exodus 19 is not it. You also failed to offer a passage in the New Testament where the people reaffirm the New Covenant in this same manner or similar.

In the end, this is all you can do. Blow smoke and confuse anything I put forward. What is your agenda? Are you part of some weird offshoot sect like the Worldwide Church of God, or the Seventh Day Adventists? Or are you just a Jew, trying to drag all Gentiles back under the Law?

You have a completely misleading answer to my question of What is the New Covenant. We have heard your answer. I reject it. If you wish to discuss it further, start your own thread on this message board and see who is interested.

I will not discuss this with you further until such time as you can cite the specific passage that you believe institutes the Old Covenant and/or you can cite a specific passage in the New Testament that reaffirms your version of the New Covenant.

Honi soit qui mal y pense
Go to Top of Page

Caleb
Advanced Member

Philippines
209 Posts

Posted - 23 Jul 2015 :  11:32:40  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Manuel,

The parable of the Prodigal Son is the longest of Jesus' parables. I now understand why this is. This is the key parable that sums up our problem and the solution. It contains so much more than they taught us in Sunday School.

We ARE the Prodigal Son, and we must come home to our Father. But why are we the prodigal, who is the older brother, and where is home?

Honi soit qui mal y pense
Go to Top of Page

Manuel
Advanced Member

USA
762 Posts

Posted - 23 Jul 2015 :  15:49:07  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Greetings Caleb,
I posted the following history research for a reason:
Covenants of the gods
http://www.hisholychurch.org/media/publications/COGprint.pdf

Although it is hard hitting, to me it smacks right at the heart of the torments going on now as well as the past. I think it helps refine and bring home a way which has been hidden, keeping many far from the teachings, doctrines and precepts of God's Way.

Caleb, have not looked up the definition of prodigal, but do know of going back in to fathers house for healing. I guess the older brother is one who nurtures his younger brother, and "home" is one of the many mansions Jesus told of.

At this point, fightin' and fuzzin' I think will not bring fruits, unless the point to get a-cross is shown as the very nature of His True teachings based on faith, hope and charity, without force. If that means to be separate while still being kind to strangers, so be it, adhering to due diligence of course.

Blessings,
Manuel

PS Thousands of Jews (citizens of Judea) followed and got baptized into Abraham's, Moses & Jesus's teaching and form of government (world). They where "cast out".

Edited by - Manuel on 23 Jul 2015 16:14:26
Go to Top of Page

jsnyder3395
Regular Member

USA
39 Posts

Posted - 23 Jul 2015 :  23:30:40  Show Profile  Send jsnyder3395 a Yahoo! Message  Reply with Quote
Hello all,

I have just returned to Internet access. I will review the posts, and reply as guided. I will, God willing, attempt to address these thoughts by tomorrow. I pray that His truth will come out of all of this.

Manuel, it is interesting to me that you are one of the few who have made the distinction the Word of God makes with regard to your statement:

PS Thousands of Jews (citizens of Judea) followed and got baptized into Abraham's, Moses & Jesus's teaching and form of government (world). They where "cast out".

I appreciate your insight.

In Him




James Snyder
Go to Top of Page

Manuel
Advanced Member

USA
762 Posts

Posted - 24 Jul 2015 :  10:12:23  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Greetings James,
The Bible is about history and government/s. That is
why I point out the research done, so people, hopefully,
would be able to separate and come to their own conclusions,
through free will, just like the many "free will offerings"
mentioned in the Bible. "Food for thought."

Blessings to all,
Manuel
Go to Top of Page

jsnyder3395
Regular Member

USA
39 Posts

Posted - 24 Jul 2015 :  18:29:10  Show Profile  Send jsnyder3395 a Yahoo! Message  Reply with Quote
Caleb, et. al.;

I hope to wrap this up with this post, unless someone would request a continuation of the discussion. It appears that there may be no end to this discussion. You indicate that you believe that I am “ … being deliberately obtuse.” 18 Jul 2015 : 00:12:04


YET, you ask questions and receive answers, but you refuse to even acknowledge the fact that answers have been given. You simply wipe your hand through the air and all scripture is gone.

You change your view as you write. You said “James is right that obedience to the Ten Commandments is consistent with loving your neighbor and loving God.” Then you make the negative statement about my thoughts by saying, “you have done nothing but drag us back into the Old Covenant, by pretending that this is what the New Covenant actually is…You, by contrast, take every mention of Love, including these, and point us back to the Ten Commandments.” Is obedience to the Ten Commandments “consistent with loving…” or is it not?

It seems to me that these two statements are contradictory. Perhaps you can clarify.

After listing many scripture verses showing, I think conclusively, that the Ten Commandments and the Law of Moses are separate and distinct, you simply say, I am not going to argue scripture with you. What about all the scripture? It seems that it goes the way of the “stranger” and usury where you state, “Frankly, I believe the Jews added this at some point.” (11 July)” Since you believe this, it makes it so. Even though there is NO textual or historic reason for the belief; if the scripture does not fit, that scripture is discarded and simply does not exist in your theology. If I am wrong on this, please correct me.

You have stated “Speaking again of the Ten Commandments, you wrote: They were placed inside the Ark of the Covenant, covered by the mercy seat, separate from the Old Covenant."

You state, “I find it astonishing that you could write this and not see the contradiction in your own words. The Ark of the COVENANT holds the words of the COVENANT! You then try to cover for this by making up a separate "TEN COMMANDMENTS COVENANT" THAT IS FOUND NOWHERE IN SCRIPTURE.”

You must be just ignorant of this truth. The Ten Commands Covenant IS found in scripture! I cannot imagine you deliberately misstating the facts. It is hard for me to imagine that you have not read these scriptures. Is it possible that again, you simply put out of your mind the scriptures you do not want to see! At the risk of being relegated to the department of redundancy department I submit the following scripture.

And the LORD spake unto you out of the midst of the fire: ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude; only ye heard a voice. 13 And he declared unto YOU HIS COVENANT, WHICH HE COMMANDED YOU TO PERFORM, EVEN TEN COMMANDMENTS; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone. (Deu 4:12-13 KJV)

His Covenant…even Ten Commandments…on two tables! True or false? Found in scripture, or not?

Does this scripture state that the Covenant IS the Ten Commandments? To eliminate the possibility that you will simply say that is only in the scripture one time, and that the “Jews added it later” so it can be ignored, here is another scripture.

28 And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he (
God) wrote upon the tables the words of THE COVENANT, THE TEN COMMANDMENTS. (Exo 34:28 KJV)

Your statement “’TEN COMMANDMENTS COVENANT’ THAT IS FOUND NOWHERE IN SCRIPTURE” is proven to be false. Is it possible that you can admit that your statement, made unequivocally, is in fact false,?
Can you admit that it is found in scripture, and the Covenant IS the Ten Commandments. Not interpreted from some obscure reading, but from a straight forward clear and concise statement.

You state, “I will not discuss this with you further until such time as you can cite the specific passage that you believe institutes the Old Covenant and/or you can cite a specific passage in the New Testament that reaffirms your version of the New Covenant.”

Here is, in fact, a straight forward reading of the implementation of the Covenant of Moses, or the covenant given through Moses. It is referred many times as the “Law of Moses.”

And he said unto Moses, Come up unto the LORD, thou, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel; and worship ye afar off. 2 And Moses alone shall come near the LORD: but they shall not come nigh; neither shall the people go up with him. 3 And Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the LORD hath said will we do. 4 And MOSES WROTE ALL THE WORDS OF THE LORD, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel. 5 And he sent young men of the children of Israel, which offered burnt offerings, and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen unto the LORD. 6 And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basons; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar. 7 And he took the BOOK OF THE COVENANT, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient. 8 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the BLOOD OF THE COVENANT, WHICH THE LORD HATH MADE WITH YOU CONCERNING ALL THESE WORDS. (Exo 24:1-8 KJV)

For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, 20 Saying, This is the blood of the Covenant which God hath enjoined unto you. (Heb 9:19-20 KJV)

The two preceeding scriptures indicate clearly that Moses instated a covenant, Moses wrote all the words of the Covenant, and Hebrews indicates it is the people and the book, not the tablets, that were sprinkled.

So we have the “Ten Commandment Covenant” and the “Book of the Covenant.”

Here are some illustrations of how the “Law of Moses” was used. For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? (1Co 9:9 KJV)

But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. (Act 15:5 KJV) Note John 7:22, Circumcision was not instituted by Moses, but was “administered” under the Old Covenant.

And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord; (Luk 2:22 KJV)

Again, the contrast between The “Two Laws” is clear. (Gal 4) and I will give only one additional scripture, since I have given many previously.

Nehemiah makes specific mention of this process and of the source of the “Two Laws.”

Thou camest down also upon mount Sinai, and SPAKEST WITH THEM FROM HEAVEN, and gavest them right judgments, and true laws, good statutes and commandments: 14 And madest known unto them thy holy sabbath, AND commandedst them precepts, statutes, and laws, BY THE HAND OF MOSES THY SERVANT:
(Neh 9:13-14 KJV)

Jesus’ discussion of the institution of the New Covenant is listed here: And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. 20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new Covenant in my blood, which is shed for you. (Luk 22:19-20 KJV)

Jesus was pointing forward to the blood which was to be shed on the cross, which confirmed and finalized the New Covenant.

Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. 8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the GOSPEL UNTO ABRAHAM, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. (Gal 3:7-8 KJV) And this I say, that THE COVENANT, THAT WAS CONFIRMED BEFORE OF GOD IN CHRIST, THE LAW, WHICH WAS FOUR HUNDRED AND THIRTY YEARS AFTER, CANNOT DISANNUL, that it should make the promise of none effect. (Gal 3:17 KJV)

The Gospel about the Covenant, which was confirmed by Christ on the cross is 430 years older than the Old Covenant Law.

The New Covenant is identified as: This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; 17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. 18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.
(Heb 10:16-18 KJV)

Identification of the Law which is the definition of Love, and to be written on the heart is: Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. 9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. (Rom 13:8-10 KJV)

The Ten Commandments are quoted as fulfilling Love to your neighbor.

The last point to be made is to comment on this question:

You ask the question: How can the Ten Commandments be "written on the heart" when our natural inclination remains to disobey them?

Do you walk by faith or by sight? The Word of God says: “…we walk by faith, not by sight” (2Co 5:7 KJV) Is one to go by personal experience, or is one to rely on the Word of God for understanding?

Hearken unto me, ye that know righteousness, the people IN WHOSE HEART IS MY LAW; fear ye not the reproach of men, neither be ye afraid of their revilings. (Isa 51:7 KJV)

The mouth of the righteous speaketh wisdom, and his tongue talketh of judgment. 31 The law of his God is in his heart; none of his steps shall slide. (Psa 37:30-31 KJV)

For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: (Heb 8:10 KJV)

This is the promise of the New Covenant. GOD “writes” His Law on our heart. That is the change of nature that is promised by way of entering into Covenant relationship with God through the Blood of Jesus Christ, being circumcised in the heart, dying with Christ in water baptism and being raised to walk in newness of life by the power of the Holy Spirit of God. .

With regard to the Law of God: What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. (Rom 7:7 KJV) For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: (Rom 7:22 KJV) This connects the two, The New Covenant Law , the Ten Commandments, and the Law of God in context!

Here Paul is expressing clearly the fact that the Ten Commandments (v7) reveal what sin is, and that it is called “the Law of God” (v22).

2 Cor 3:6-14 again reveals that the New Covenant was written and engraved in stones, and was administered via Moses’ administration, until Christ was to come. Yet the writer says, that the veil remains untaken away in the reading of the Old Covenant, linking Moses and the Old Covenant. The veil is upon their heart.

Our hope is in Jesus, the savior as he provides salvation from the penalty of sin so that we can receive the power of the Spirit of God to walk in righteousness which is offered by the blood of the New Covenant. This blood was shed on the cross that we might be empowered to fulfill the scripture, Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: (Col 1:13 KJV)

I am sorry to be so long, but the Word of God needs to be clarified. If there are fallacies, or other errors, please point them out specifically. I truly want to know. If there are, it is obvious that I do not see them. I could be blinded. Others may be able to see what I cannot.

In Christ,


James Snyder
Go to Top of Page

jsnyder3395
Regular Member

USA
39 Posts

Posted - 24 Jul 2015 :  18:53:40  Show Profile  Send jsnyder3395 a Yahoo! Message  Reply with Quote
Manuel,
I have downloaded the book, and will attempt to examine it this week. Thank you.

James Snyder
Go to Top of Page

Manuel
Advanced Member

USA
762 Posts

Posted - 24 Jul 2015 :  20:29:39  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Hi James, Caleb and all,

See... as all this reciting and "praying" and quoting is going on, there is a lost sheep needing help http://ecclesia.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1254 yet Church "services" are being overlooked.

What happened to "there is no greater love..."

Heck... I can be looking out the window and see someone needing help, but praying (in this case-thinking) would do no good unless I go out to help, physically.

Not to offend, but to bring out a very important action.

If a True Church is to be what it is meant to be, then no lost sheep should be left alone to be devoured.

Why did Jesus wash feet?
Go to Top of Page

jsnyder3395
Regular Member

USA
39 Posts

Posted - 24 Jul 2015 :  20:46:50  Show Profile  Send jsnyder3395 a Yahoo! Message  Reply with Quote
P.S. Just an additional clarification before it becomes an issue. When Israel was delivered from Egypt, they had been in bondage about 400 years. It appears that they lost sight of the Sabbath. In Exodus 16, before Israel reached Sinai, Then said the LORD unto Moses, Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a certain rate every day, that I may prove them, whether they will walk in my law, or no. (Exo 16:4 KJV) How can there be a test to see if they will walk in God's law (my law), if there is no law? The 7 day cycle is re-established. When one fails to observe, the question is asked, And the LORD said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws? (Exo 16:28 KJV) Pretty straight forward, it seems to me.


James Snyder
Go to Top of Page

jsnyder3395
Regular Member

USA
39 Posts

Posted - 25 Jul 2015 :  11:38:52  Show Profile  Send jsnyder3395 a Yahoo! Message  Reply with Quote
Manuel,
Thank you for your observations. Offering and helping others is in fact what "true religion" is about. Visit those afflicted. (Not just to say hi!) Those sick and in "prison" are a focus of our Lord. The empowerment to do the things He desires of us is important. Doing by the Spirit of the Lord, being led by His Spirit, and walking by faith in all of this is exemplary. Thank you for placing the focus on the important.

It is also true that striving for the truth is important. There are those who "receive not a love for the truth, that they might be saved" and there are many who "believe a lie" (2 Thes 2:). Walking by faith and seeking the truth are part of the Christian life. Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. (Jud 1:3 KJV)

So in the Words of Jesus, some "have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone." (Mat 23:23 KJV)

Striving for understanding the Almighty and His desire for us is as important as feeding the poor. Again, these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

James Snyder
Go to Top of Page

Caleb
Advanced Member

Philippines
209 Posts

Posted - 25 Jul 2015 :  12:43:57  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
James,

Since you have provided the passages of Scripture that I asked for, I am going to go through your entire post and try to gain some clarity from the Scriptures you have cited.

Your own terms are so confusing that when I tried to use them, you simply turned them around and use it against me. Most of what you have written about my position is a false witness, pure and simple. It makes no sense, but makes for great copy when you want to try to show me as the confused one.

So I am not going to rebut you lie by lie. I am going to start by rejecting, out of hand, everything you have written as indecipherable confusion. I will only comment on the Scriptures you cite, and try to establish some clarity on the terms used.

Deut 4:12-13
"His" Covenant = Ten Commandments on two tables of stone
No mention of a second covenant with Moses and Israel.

Exodus 34
The second two tablets of stone
"A" covenant and "the" covenant.
And there are ten commandments listed in verses 14 through 26, but they are not the same as the ones in Exodus 20. Some are the same, such as the Sabbath, but others are from what you call the Mosaic Law, such as the Passover.
If you read the whole chapter, there are many similarities to Exodus 20, but the fact that it contains commands NOT from Exodus 20 tips your whole theory over already.

Exodus 24
"Book of" the covenant - not very helpful since this term is never used again in the Pentateuch.
Yes, here is the making of a covenant, very similar to Exodus 19.
What indication do we have that they are different covenants?

Exodus 19
"my" covenant
What links this to the Abrahamic Covenant?

Genesis 15
"a" covenant with Abram
Promised land and many descendents
No mention of any rules to follow.

Abraham's covenant is clear.

There is nothing in any of the above that makes a distinction between the other covenants. None of them are called the "Old" covenant, because at that time there was only one covenant with the people of Israel.

There is certainly nothing to distinguish that Israel made two separate covenants, one in Exodus 19 and another in Exodus 24. In fact, that passage reads as a unified whole. Exodus 20 through 23 are the words of the law, or the terms of the Covenant. The people's agreement with them is noted immediately before and immediately following.

There is absolutely nothing to indicate that Exodus 19 refers to the covenant with Abram. And there is nothing to indicate that there is one covenant in Ch 19, whose terms are found in Ch 20, and another covenant in Ch 24, whose terms are found in Ch 21-23. References to "a" covenant, "the" covenant, and "my" covenant all betray the notion of a single covenant being referred to. If there was more than one, surely Moses would have been careful enough to distinguish between the two.

These passages all use terms like "words", "testimony", "statutes", "precepts" and "judgments" when referring to the covenant, but the term, "law" only appears twice:

In Deuteronomy 4, it appears in verses 8 and 44, both before and after the passage you cite.

In Exodus 24:12 God says, "I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written."

This second example occurs after the making of the covenant, so in your view this must be a reference to the Ten Commandments and to the "Law of God", since it is all written by the hand of God. Nothing here uses the phrases "Law of God" or "Law of Moses", so that does not help us.

Galatian 4
This does not speak of "two" laws, but of "the law" and "the promise". Once again, there is nothing to link the Ten Commandments to the promise to Abraham.

Nehemiah 9
This one is interesting, but it actually sinks your theory. On the one hand there does appear to be the distinction you wish to make between the Law of God and the Law of Moses, but on the other hand this would mean that Nehemiah was referring to ONLY Ten brief commandments when he says, "right judgments, and true laws, good statutes and commandments." Did a mere 10 commandments really also contain "laws", "statutes" and "judgments"?

Luke 22
While I agree that Jesus instituted the New Covenant here, where are the necessary elements that we find in Exodus 19 and 24? What are the terms of the agreement? Where do the Disciples agree to those terms?

Galatians 3
Here Paul contrasts "the covenant" with "the law". From the context we know that the covenant is the New Covenant, which also relates to the promise to Abraham. The Law is The Law, which is also called the Old Covenant.

Paul is speaking in broad terms. When he says "430 year after", he is referring to Moses and the Law given at Mount Sinai. He makes no distinction whatsoever between Exodus 19 and Exodus 24. And keep in mind that in Exodus 24, "covenant" refers to the Old Covenant, while "law" refers to the Ten Commandments (in your reading). Yet Paul has chosen "covenant" to refer to the New Covenant and "Law" to refer to the Old Covenant. His choice of wording is exactly opposite to yours!

Romans 13.
Your misunderstanding about the Ten Commandments is causing you to misread this passage. Its conclusion is:
"love is the fulfilling of the law."
Compare this with the words of Christ:

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

When the law is fulfilled, it does pass away. That is exactly what Jesus is saying. That is precisely what Paul has in mind in Romans 13. If we understand and obey his words, then all those commands become superfluous, because they are fulfilled in the one command, "Owe no man any thing, but to love one another."

The problem is, neither you nor most Christians even come close to understanding this command. Bondservant probably does, which is why I chided him on getting ahead of us in this discussion. People do not understand what "agape" is, nor how to achieve it. As a consequence, they revert back to the Ten Commandments, which they do understand!

Romans 7
Nice try on this one. It actually says the exact opposite of what you want it to.

Paul says, "Thou shalt not covet" and calls this "the law". Now it is mind boggling to me that we have written so much back and forth to establish such a simple, obvious point. Paul does not have a lot of good things to say about "the law". And when he referred to "the law" in Galatians, he was referring to "Thou shalt not covet", together with the other 9 commandments and the balance of the Law of Moses.

Further down, Paul is contrasting the "two laws" you have spoken of. You have to read it carefully, but you will see that he is contrasting "the law" or "the law of sin" (Old Covenant), with the Law of God (New Covenant), which he defines in Romans 13 as, "Owe no man anything but to love."

This is very clear in verse 25, which you failed to cite:
"I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin."

As it turns out, Romans 7 and 8 are the only places in the entire New Testament that the term "Law of God" is used. And while you are probably agreeing that the "Law of God" refers to the New Covenant, this is contrasted by Paul with "the law" which includes "Thou shalt not covet." So this separates the New Covenant from the Ten Commandments.

More importantly, in Romans 7 Paul is describing the exact struggle the Christian faces when he tries to obey the Ten Commandments. It is precisely here that he describes the impossibility of the task. And while many interject their magic-wand notions into chapter 8, they are simply wrong that a magic transformation in motivations occurs. If it does, show me the churches that advertise, "Come to our church and we'll show you how to be perfect." Instead, every Christian I know will shoot you if you say that Jesus said they could be perfect in this life. They recoil in horror, and reaffirm for the 439,563rd time what a worthless, wretched sinner they are.

I've been to the hypocritical churches. They tell you how Jesus is going to change your life and suddenly you are going to want to obey the Ten Commandments. And when you ask them to wave that magic wand and make it happen, they tell you that theirs is broken but they hope to get it fixed next week.

You cite a whole bunch of verses saying that God will write his law on our hearts, but you cannot actually describe the process. You merely cite walking by faith and not by sight. This verse does not even apply. You have no meaningful explanation of the concept of "the law written on our hearts". By contrast, I actually know what it means.

The Law is a yoke of bondage. We struggle to obey it. But Jesus said, "My yoke is easy and my burden is light." Thus, when the law is truly written on our hearts, any law that applies is easy to obey. There is a reason for this. It is practical and tangible, but I will not try to explain it at this time

2 Corinthians 3
Here again Paul contrasts the two laws. This is so clear. The Ten Commandments are the "ministration of death". They are NOT the New Covenant here. How can you deny this?

The only point you have raised which has some validity is that there is no place in Scripture that clearly links the term "the Law of Moses" with the Ten Commandments. But other than this one fact, which does not contradict my position, nothing else proves your position.

We are dealing with two Covenants, and Moses was NOT give both of them within a span of 5 chapters in the book of Exodus. The Ten Commandments are NOT the New Covenant, they are The Law which is FULFILLED by the New Covenant.

Honi soit qui mal y pense
Go to Top of Page

jsnyder3395
Regular Member

USA
39 Posts

Posted - 25 Jul 2015 :  17:50:35  Show Profile  Send jsnyder3395 a Yahoo! Message  Reply with Quote
Caleb,

Thank you for your response, and your understanding, at least that which you are willing to put forward. I will, again examine closely and mull carefully what you have said. My initial inclination is to respond. I really desire, however, to examine both my heart and the ideas you put forward. I do take umbrage to the characterization of my understanding of your writing as lies. Nevertheless, I will set aside my feelings and attempt an examination with an open mind guided by love. Again, the goal of this discussion, in my mind, is to ferret out the truth so growth takes place in my life and the lives of those around me. (Perhaps the "signature" you use should guide you as well.)

James Snyder
Go to Top of Page

Caleb
Advanced Member

Philippines
209 Posts

Posted - 26 Jul 2015 :  13:46:16  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
James,

If you want to "come clean", we will at least know your agenda and there will be no further questioning of your motives.

You have presented a "package" that is simply too carefully thought out for you to have come up with it on your own. It is reminiscent of what I encountered from the Seventh Day Adventists, but I never delved deeply enough into their theology to know whether this is their standard teaching or not.

As I mentioned, the Worldwide Church of God (now splintered into several groups) had similar ideas. Both groups hold up the Ten Commandments as an ideal, mostly because of the Sabbath, and yet at the same time avoid advocating a return to all of the Mosaic Law, as some Messianic groups do.

I had to make the rounds of these groups so that I could understand the Old Covenant before I could finally see where it fit in the full sweep of biblical history. The regular churches who simply ignored it as "done away with" or "nailed to the cross" were the least helpful of all. Only once I had a respect for and an appreciation of the Old Covenant could I start to wrestle with the implications of its being "fulfilled".

So it does not bother me that you hold the views you do. What bothers me is that you put them forward under a deceptive guise. You did not come up with this view simply by reading the Bible on your own. So don't put this stuff forward as if everyone should see this if they simply read in the right places. Your concept of two different covenants at Mount Sinai, one in Exodus 19 and the other in Exodus 24, is anything but obvious, and is not the accepted view of any major denomination that I am aware of.

Honi soit qui mal y pense
Go to Top of Page

jsnyder3395
Regular Member

USA
39 Posts

Posted - 03 Aug 2015 :  23:27:35  Show Profile  Send jsnyder3395 a Yahoo! Message  Reply with Quote
Caleb, et. al.

I have been traveling to Missouri so I have been unable to complete my reply. I would say that I am sorry, but rather I will tell you that I have traveled to see my brand new third great granddaughter. So in this case, family importance has overridden urgency. She is important, our conversation, in my mind is urgent. Anyway, I will be responding in a few days.



James Snyder
Go to Top of Page

Manuel
Advanced Member

USA
762 Posts

Posted - 06 Aug 2015 :  14:21:20  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Congratulations with your afterlife James :)

Blessings,
Manuel
Go to Top of Page

jsnyder3395
Regular Member

USA
39 Posts

Posted - 07 Aug 2015 :  08:49:45  Show Profile  Send jsnyder3395 a Yahoo! Message  Reply with Quote
Thank you,

Bless you as well!

James Snyder
Go to Top of Page

samualyoder
New Member

USA
1 Posts

Posted - 23 Aug 2015 :  08:10:14  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The new covenant from what I get from the scriptures is that YHWH would write his laws on our heart.
"But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." Heb 8:6-13
The "old covenant" was Torah. The problem was his people could not stop transgressing it. The fault was not the Torah, as you can see in these verses the fault was the people. So YHWH decided to make a new covenant. It was the same covenant the only difference is instead of just writing them down and expecting the people to obey them (which they did not), he decided that those who would agree to the new covenant he would put his laws in their heart or mind so that they would be able to keep his covenant without transgressing it.
That is the only difference. Now when we get "saved" & study his word, he writes his covenant into our mind as we mature in his word. Eventually (when he returns) we will not have to be taught it, we will all know it and teach it.
Go to Top of Page

jsnyder3395
Regular Member

USA
39 Posts

Posted - 23 Aug 2015 :  10:09:11  Show Profile  Send jsnyder3395 a Yahoo! Message  Reply with Quote
SamualYoder,
Thank you for the post and for your help. I am about to post a reply to a previous post. In the overall picture you present here, I believe you are correct. The clarification that I would offer will be posted in a response to Caleb, either today or tomorrow.

James Snyder
Go to Top of Page

jsnyder3395
Regular Member

USA
39 Posts

Posted - 23 Aug 2015 :  14:44:12  Show Profile  Send jsnyder3395 a Yahoo! Message  Reply with Quote
Samuel,

One clarification that I would make is that "Torah ( Hebrew: #1514;#1468;#1493;#1465;#1512;#1464;#1492;, "Instruction, Teaching"), or the Pentateuch is the central reference of the religious Judaic tradition. It has a range of meanings. It can most specifically mean the first five books of the twenty-four books of the Tanakh." So the Old Testament (Tanakh) contains the Pentateuch (first five books) which contain the Old Covenant. Everything in the Torah is not part of the Old Covenant, and a great deal of the Old Testament is not "Old Covenant."

James Snyder
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 6 Previous Topic Topic   
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
ECCLESIASTIC COMMONWEALTH COMMUNITY © MMXVII Ecclesiastic Commonwealth Community Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.11 seconds. Snitz Forums 2000