As it was in the days of Noah

[CWH]

Matthew 24:36"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[a] but only the Father. 37As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.

"As it was in the days of Noah" seems to suggest a world-wide event when the whole world was engulfed in a great Flood, so will be at the coming of the Son of Man when it will be a world event in which everyone in the world will experience it. People will be eating, marrying and enjoying themselves, oblivious until the Son of Man come to sweep them away.

Therefore, the coming of the Son of Man is not an event that happened only in Israel or the Middle East but it will be experience throughout the world, as it was in the days of Noah when the Great Flood engulfed the whole world. But no one knows when that day will come except the Father in heaven.

Many Blessings.

[Rose]

Matthew 24:36"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[a] but only the Father. 37As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.

"As it was in the days of Noah" seems to suggest a world-wide event when the whole world was engulfed in a great Flood, so will be at the coming of the Son of Man when it will be a world event in which everyone in the world will experience it. People will be eating, marrying and enjoying themselves, oblivious until the Son of Man come to sweep them away.

Therefore, the coming of the Son of Man is not an event that happened only in Israel or the Middle East but it will be experience throughout the world, as it was in the days of Noah when the Great Flood engulfed the whole world. But no one knows when that day will come except the Father in heaven.

Many Blessings.

Hi Cheow,

Good topic...:thumb: It evokes lots of food for thought...:pop2:

My approach is to first focus on what Jesus meant by "As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.". To my understanding Jesus is telling His disciples that in the same manner that the people of the world in Noah's day were busy about their daily lives, so it will be when the Son of Man comes.

The people of Noah's day were totally unaware that the catasrophic event of the flood, that was the judgment of God, was about to wipe them all away. The same idea applies to what Jesus is saying will happen when He comes in judgment on the world. That coming will coincide with a catastrophic event (complete and utter destruction of Jerusalem) that will wipe those people away who are busy eating, and drinking, marrying, and giving in marriage, and not watching for His coming.

I don't see the text as saying the catastrophic event must cover the globe, only that the same "manner" of judgment upon mans wickedness will occur. And besides that, God said He would never wipe out all of mankind again like He did with the flood.


Gen. 9:11-13 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth. And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.

Notice when God says, "there shall never be a flood again to destroy the earth"; the sense in which "earth" is used is not the physical earth which we know was not destroyed, but the "earth" in reference to creatures living on the earth.

Thanks again for bringing up the subject....:signthankspin:

Rose

[joel]

Matthew 24:36"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[a] but only the Father. 37As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.

"As it was in the days of Noah" seems to suggest a world-wide event when the whole world was engulfed in a great Flood, so will be at the coming of the Son of Man when it will be a world event in which everyone in the world will experience it. People will be eating, marrying and enjoying themselves, oblivious until the Son of Man come to sweep them away.

Therefore, the coming of the Son of Man is not an event that happened only in Israel or the Middle East but it will be experience throughout the world, as it was in the days of Noah when the Great Flood engulfed the whole world. But no one knows when that day will come except the Father in heaven.

Many Blessings.

Thanks, Cheow Wee Hock.......very timely that you should bring this up.

Don't have time to discuss it now, but will return........please look at Hebrews 11:7.....to add to the discussion.

Joel

[TheForgiven]

We do not know if the entire earth was completely covered in water. Theologists suggest that only that region of the world was covered in water, and not necessarily the entire globe. Of course, this doesn't matter. The focus of Noah's flood wasn't the main-idea of Christ's warning. It was the suddenness, and the unexpected judgment that would catch them by surprise.

Besides, the world wasn't destroyed then, so why would we expect it to be destroyed later? Only the inhabitants were destroyed; not the earth. Yet the Futurist/Dispensation teaching insists that the entire globe will melt from the heat, even though it was never destroyed in the flood. They've gone so far as to include even the stars, and the planetary masses of the universe. So is God going to wipe out every single thing in the entire universe because of the faults of a single globe? :confused:

Nope! And there's no scripture to even accidentally suggest that.

I hate to say this, but this kind of teaching is just pure fiction designed for the silver screen. :pop2:

But thanks for bringing this up because the discussion of the fictional destruction of the earth must be debated. Because the pictures below will never happen.

http://towleroad.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/12/29/asteroid.jpg http://andstillipersist.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/earth-destroy.jpg

Let's get it on. :thumb:

Joe

[CWH]

Hi,

I am fully aware that the world will not be destroyed by a flood again and I am fully aware that the earth will abide forever, it will not be vaporised and gone forever....don't put me in that category of extreme Futurist or shall I say Full Futurist :D. When I say "the end of the world" or when I say "the earth is destroyed", I meant the end of creation followed by a regeneration of the whole earth.

Thanks Joe, there are archeological evidences that the earth was once covered by a great flood. There were even legends in Mesopotamia (story of Gilgamesh) and other ancient regions (Greek and Chinese as well) of a Great Flood quite similar to that described in the BIble:

http://www.livius.org/fa-fn/flood/flood5.html


Thanks Rose, yes, the earth will not be "destroyed" by a great flood but it doesn't mean it will not be "destroyed" through other means such as fire.

Thanks, Joel, I would also like to put in a few other passages for discussions related to the topic, "As in the days of Noah":

Isaiah 54:9

"To me this is like the days of Noah, when I swore that the waters of Noah would never again cover the earth. So now I have sworn not to be angry with you, never to rebuke you again.

1 Peter 3:20

who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water,


Hebrews 11:7*
7By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family. By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.

Note* 1 Peter 3:20 is quite similar in context with Hebrews 11:7.

Food for thought: Does those days of Noah sounds like the present day in which people are happily feasting, marrying oblivious to what is happening and coming to this world?....earthquakes in Indonesia, floods in Philippines etc.

Many Blessings to all.

[joel]

Matthew 24:36-38 (Young's Literal Translation)

36`And concerning that day and the hour no one hath known -- not even the messengers of the heavens -- except my Father only;

37and as the days of Noah -- so shall be also the presence of the Son of Man;

38for as they were, in the days before the flood, eating, and drinking, marrying, and giving in marriage, till the day Noah entered into the ark,
-----------------------------------------------------------

The day, and the hour of the day being discussed.........no one hath known.....not even the angels.......only the Father.

No one........

The presence of the Son of man (huios anthropos) will occur during a period of time that can be compared to the days of Noah.

Normal things were occurring, and continued until Noah (and his family) entered the ark.

The time in which the events of the ark of Noah was of such importance and uniqueness that it is directly related to, and compared to by Jesus as of similar magnitude to that of the coming of the Son of man, a title which Jesus often spoke of concerning Himself.

Joel

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

Matthew 24:36"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[a] but only the Father. 37As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.

"As it was in the days of Noah" seems to suggest a world-wide event when the whole world was engulfed in a great Flood, so will be at the coming of the Son of Man when it will be a world event in which everyone in the world will experience it. People will be eating, marrying and enjoying themselves, oblivious until the Son of Man come to sweep them away.

Therefore, the coming of the Son of Man is not an event that happened only in Israel or the Middle East but it will be experience throughout the world, as it was in the days of Noah when the Great Flood engulfed the whole world. But no one knows when that day will come except the Father in heaven.

Many Blessings.
Hi,
We went from a 'seems to suggest" to an absolute statement of fact.

Perhaps we should look again at what the inclusion of Noahs example was exemplifying. I think if you look at the point in RED above, you'll see the point that Jesus was wanting to get across. For those in Jerusalem and Judea not believing in Jesus words nor watching, the people knew nothing of what would happen until the Roman army came and swept them all away.
I think Joe has hit it on the head that the message is about removing the ungodly while the remnant remains or is preserved.

Ezekiel prophesied during the Babylonian captivity. He mentions Noah, Job, and Daniel in chapter 14 along with the sword being delivered against Jerusalem. Here he uses a figure of speech saying that even though Noah, Daniel and Job would be in Jerusalem, they each would deliver their own souls from the destruction. This would be an association with the New Covenant where each one would be accountable for their own destiny and blessing; not the continuation of the national, corporal preservation of the old covenant for at this time, the old covenant was broken, ended by the removal of the ark of the covenant.

Perhaps Jesus is partly making an association in the disciples minds about his prophecy. Notice the 4 sore judgments are repeated by Jesus in the Olivet and Jerusalem is the focus of this event also. As Paul quotes Isaiah 10 in Romans 9 referring the remnant to be saved through the desolation, so also Ezekiel mentions the same idea of a remnant being brought forth.



13Son of man, when the land sinneth against me by trespassing grievously, then will I stretch out mine hand upon it, and will break the staff of the bread thereof, and will send famine upon it, and will cut off man and beast from it:

14Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord GOD.

15If I cause noisome beasts to pass through the land, and they spoil it, so that it be desolate, that no man may pass through because of the beasts:

16Though these three men were in it, as I live, saith the Lord GOD, they shall deliver neither sons nor daughters; they only shall be delivered, but the land shall be desolate.

17Or if I bring a sword upon that land, and say, Sword, go through the land; so that I cut off man and beast from it:

18Though these three men were in it, as I live, saith the Lord GOD, they shall deliver neither sons nor daughters, but they only shall be delivered themselves.

19Or if I send a pestilence into that land, and pour out my fury upon it in blood, to cut off from it man and beast:

20Though Noah, Daniel, and Job were in it, as I live, saith the Lord GOD, they shall deliver neither son nor daughter; they shall but deliver their own souls by their righteousness.

21For thus saith the Lord GOD; How much more when I send my four sore judgments upon Jerusalem, the sword, and the famine, and the noisome beast, and the pestilence, to cut off from it man and beast?

22Yet, behold, therein shall be left a remnant that shall be brought forth, both sons and daughters: behold, they shall come forth unto you, and ye shall see their way and their doings: and ye shall be comforted concerning the evil that I have brought upon Jerusalem, even concerning all that I have brought upon it.

23And they shall comfort you, when ye see their ways and their doings: and ye shall know that I have not done without cause all that I have done in it, saith the Lord GOD.

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

Hi,
Food for thought: Does those days of Noah sounds like the present day in which people are happily feasting, marrying oblivious to what is happening and coming to this world?....earthquakes in Indonesia, floods in Philippines etc.

Many Blessings to all.
I don't think there was ever a time when people were not feasting, marrying, etc. DO YOU??

I just read where John Calvin when helping to translate the Geneva Bible, sought to expedite it's progress because of the disreguard for their lives and morality that was in his city at that time. At an all time high is how he put it. I think the implication of Noahs time might be that they were living without respect to their eternal state. "Eat, drink, be merry for tomorrow we die". Could that perhaps be the concept being presented?

Just as Peter said that in the last days, (of the old covenant and of Jerusalem; my insertion) scoffers would coming saying 'where is the promise of his coming, for since the days of the fathers (fathers of the nation of Israel) things have continued as they were since the creation of the World. And they forget that God powerfully intervened to remove ungodliness from the land with the flood, and so he would again in Jerusalem and throughout the earth as a result of both the confirmation of the New Covenant and the establishment and support of the internal kingdom of God through the power of Heaven.

Here is a pretty good article that lists some of the imposters, famines, pestilence, earthquake, etc..
http://www.preteristarchive.com/PartialPreterism/The_Anti-Rapture_Page/matt24.htm
Although the author makes a distinction between the different words used for "end" and "then" vs 'that day'.

P.S. It is again important to realize the differnce between Gennema and Genea.... and what Jesus meant by "THIS Genea".... and 'some of you standing here".... (there in Jerusalem in 30 AD)

Food for thought.

[joel]

".....Just as Peter said that in the last days, (of the old covenant and of Jerusalem; my insertion)....."

Why must you continue to insist, along with the others who hold the position, that the old covenant (i. e. the first covenant is passed away...past tense)? Read again the passage in Hebrews.

Has it passed away?.....or, is it in a state of passing away......? There is a difference...is there not?

The Jews,.......even unto this day......when the read Moses......are blinded. This is a state of blindness that continues until this day.

It is not past tense. It is continuing.....in the present.

Preterists continue to assert that it is all finished. But.......if you look closely at the facts.....not your theories......you will see that it is not a matter of the past.

Joel

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

".....Just as Peter said that in the last days, (of the old covenant and of Jerusalem; my insertion)....."

Why must you continue to insist, along with the others who hold the position, that the old covenant (i. e. the first covenant is passed away...past tense)? Read again the passage in Hebrews.

Has it passed away?.....or, is it in a state of passing away......? There is a difference...is there not?

The Jews,.......even unto this day......when the read Moses......are blinded. This is a state of blindness that continues until this day.

It is not past tense. It is continuing.....in the present.

Preterists continue to assert that it is all finished. But.......if you look closely at the facts.....not your theories......you will see that it is not a matter of the past.

Joel
Good question.
So that we are on the same page; What in your mind is/was the "old covenant"? or 'the first covenant".
There have been others I have discussed this with who have confused prophecies and statements by God about the formation of the nation that were given to Abraham with the actual covenant offered to and contracted by the people/nation themselves. So what in your mind is the 'old covenant' which Hebrews talks about through most of chapters 4-10?
The answer is right in Jeremiah 31 or Heb 10 when he says how the old covenant started.

Hebrews does indeed say in chapter 8:
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. Ready is eggos. Strongs says
2) of time
a) of times imminent and soon to come pass

Since this was written in 60 AD we would be rational to assume that this meant imminent at that time and imminent to the original readers.

CAN WE AGREE TO THIS POINT?

Hebrews also says in chapter 8 along with the above:
For if that first [covenant] had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

Hebrews says in chapter 10 speaking of the two covenants: Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

And in chapter 7:
14For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
15And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
16Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.
17For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
18For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.
19For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

Then also in 2 Corinthians chapter 3, in the second part which you alluded to:

7But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:

When the old covenant was given it was prophecied right in the covenant that it would be broken have a latter end and be done away with. My namesake is where it was prophesied to have that end and the circumstances surrounding this 'end' was elaborated upon by other prophets of national Israel. If you haven't followed the discussion Joe and I had about Deut 32 in the Generation of Vipers section, your very welcome to do so.

And also in 2 Cor 3:
For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious. Here again is talking of the old covenant, ministry of condemnation vs the unconditional love/forgiveness, removal of sins of Christ and eternal life (now)

And also,
13And not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:
14But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.
15But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.
16Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.
17Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

"Until this day is at least talking about until the day of the desolation when either the believing jews escaped to Pella, or unbelieving Jews perished or parts of the sects lived on or sold into slavery. As mentioned in the other post according to Jewish sources 94% of those who call themselves Israel are directly associated with the talmudism or Judaism. This is more closely associated with a new religion than it is of the old covenant nation.

But even so, when Moses law is read as a compelled performance or as law of conditional salvation or conditional blessing to that nation, the veil is on the heart obscureing the antithetical aspect of the old covenant.

I do think it applies to this day also at least somewhat as I'm sure that they read the talmud as much as Moses: that when Moses is read, the hardness of the law and the insurmountable obligation to do "All that was commanded of them" creates a veil so that those under law cannot see that the law itself was inferior, and faulty and contained within it prophecies of the circumcision of the heart and the remedy of Loving God with new heart.

Nevertheless when the HEART shall turn to the Lord, the veil of the law shall be removed. NOW the LORD is that Spirit (which circumcises the heart through faith in Christ for absolute forgiveness of sin, even sin against a law). The Lord being near and nigh unto us through faith was promised in Duet 30 and became reality through the incarnation and the remaining of Jesus here with us in the form of His Spirit (John 14-16) Where the Spirit of the Lord has taken away the veil of the Law, there is LIBERTY, just as Paul says in Romans 10:4.
For Christ [is] the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

The difference between the Law and Grace is the difference between seeking Gods kingdom through meeting conditions of "a" law, weather it be old covenant national Israel law....or even making 'church' and conditional behavioral laws out of the Epistles. Grace receives unconditional forgiveness and justification through reqeust in faith through hearing by God. God's kingdom is recieved personally, internally and then we owe HIM our allegience and the reformation of our lives due to His unconditional Mercies. (His love constrains us and leads us to a hopefully positive and abundant life)
John 1:17. For the law was given by Moses, grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
I heard recently of a Pentacostal group that wanted to make their pastors sign a paper saying that they would teach that salvation (eternal life; I presume) was conditional upon certain dress codes and so forth associated with church membership.


[B]So again, before much further discussion we would need you to specifically identify what you feel is the "old covenant"?

By the way, I do reject that the people that follow the talmudic religion/judaism are "jews". Paul says the true jews are the ones of the circumcision of the Heart and of like faith as Abraham. (Rom 2:28,29) Those who Hear the Prophet and the Lord that Moses talked about in Deut 18 and Deut 30 and who fulfilled both the old covenant and the covenant of everlasting life. National "Israel" was only a nation or a people of the old covenant. If that covenant has ended, so also has the old covenant nation and the people from Gods perspective

Neither do I subscribe to the futurists/zionist misinterpretation of Romans 11.

[DaveO]

Joe???


We do not know if the entire earth was completely covered in water. Theologists suggest that only that region of the world was covered in water, and not necessarily the entire globe. :confused:

Which theologians are those? (Perhaps they are among those "falling away" that Paul warned would happen.)


Genesis 7
19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered. 20 The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered. 21 And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man.


So is God going to wipe out every single thing in the entire universe because of the faults of a single globe?

How do we know what satan may or may not have done in the rest of creation? (John 8:44 He [satan] was a murderer from the beginning...)


Nope! And there's no scripture to even accidentally suggest that.


Uhhh.... Not accidentally but definitely on purpose!


2 Peter 3:
7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Just as the flood LITERALLY covered the whole world with real WET water, that prophesied end will LITERALLY be with real HOT BURNING fire.

Unfortunately full-preterists are forced to "invisible-ize" that passage in order to stuff it into some imagined importance to the 1st century sacking of a 2nd rate city (and it's symbolic pile-of-rocks temple) that the world didn't even miss when it passed. Only you preterists MUST "invisible-ize" God's promise of a literal new heaven and earth, a renewed creation that is perfect instead of just merely "very good". (Why such a problem with anything being in the future?)

The preterist must also "invisible-ize" God's glorious promise to the rest of His creation:


Romans 8
19 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. Perhaps there's an invisible earth where all those animals really live and the ones we see are just imagined.

Cursed is the ground for your sake; In toil you shall eat of it All the days of your life.

Your own eyes bear witness that the bondage of corruption remains and gets worse every generation! So the deliverance from it absolutely remains in the future. God never intended for His other creatures to kill to eat and/or to be eaten themselves. But he cares about mankind most so He delivered them first. God HATES sin and all it's consequences on the rest of what He owns! Whatever made the full-preterist believe that He is willing to let it continue on forever?

I understand why the preterist despises the "Hollywood-izing" of prophecy by the typical futurist. Its embarrassing! But that doesn't mean it's all wrong in concept. They believe the same Gospel, have the same Spirit and read the same word as you.

ALL men make mistakes interpreting scripture. Including the preterist who over-symbolizes just like many futurists over-literalize.

Peace brother Joe!

DaveO

[DaveO]

Hello Cheow!


Matthew 24:36"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[a] but only the Father. 37As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.

"As it was in the days of Noah" seems to suggest a world-wide event when the whole world was engulfed in a great Flood, so will be at the coming of the Son of Man when it will be a world event in which everyone in the world will experience it. People will be eating, marrying and enjoying themselves, oblivious until the Son of Man come to sweep them away.

That's a very good point. Genesis specifically states that the flood covered the WHOLE of the earth, so how far had mankind spread? Many people just assume that civilization was rather primitive prior to Noah's flood. But we know they had musical instruments and knew how to work iron and bronze metals. How sophisticated had they grown? Remember that the average life-span was near 1000 years! How much could one accomplish in a single lifetime? And what exactly were the Nephilim? The Bible more than suggests that they were fallen angels. If so, what knowledge and skills did they possibly inject into civilization? Is the legend of Atlantis 100% myth or perhaps a dim memory of a few factual things? We can't know for certain. But a careful read of Genesis paints a much different picture than humans living like "cave men".


************************************************** ***********************

The point you make Cheow is yet another problem with the full-preterist view. It's just too.... small. Their view summarizes the 22 chapters of Revelations (and most other prophecies) as thus:


"The Romans killed a bunch of bad, bad Jews and burnt their temple while God invisibly culminated His grand plan for all the ages. Everything's all good now and you'll "see" that... just as soon as you die."

Honesty, I'm truly sorry to sound so sarcastic but there it is.



************************************************** ***********************


Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin...

John 8:44 Jesus said: (Satan) was a murderer from the beginning... for he is a liar and the father of it (Satan sinned BEFORE Adam. We know for certain he wasn't confined to this little speck of dust we call earth. So exactly how much of God's creation did his sins bring death into??? )

1 Corinthians 15:26
The last enemy that will be destroyed is death.


Just open your eyes and look! Death is still the same for EVERYTHING. To think that our God has compassion only for human souls is unworthy of the depth of His love. We are really nothing more than selfish little babies that haven't even begun to scratch the surface of understanding how HUGE our Creator really is.

Again, I truly apologize for offending any full-preterists as I know I have. I honestly believe that you brothers and sisters have done an excellent job in exposing some of the silly errors of literal-futureism. You just take it too far.

Peace to you brother Cheow.

DaveO

[Rose]

Joe???



Which theologians are those? (Perhaps they are among those "falling away" that Paul warned would happen.)
Genesis 7
19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered. 20 The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered. 21 And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man.How do we know what satan may or may not have done in the rest of creation? (John 8:44 He [satan] was a murderer from the beginning...)



Uhhh.... Not accidentally but definitely on purpose!
2 Peter 3:
7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.Just as the flood LITERALLY covered the whole world with real WET water, that prophesied end will LITERALLY be with real HOT BURNING fire.

Hi DaveO

The point that I see is not whether the waters of the flood covered the entire earth, but did it destroy the physical earth? The answer is absolutely NO! As soon the waters receded the earth was able to be inhabited again, much of the plant life probably survived (a little water logged :p).

We have a whole different scenario with HOT BURNING FIRE :sFi_flamethrower:
especially the kind that MELTS everything.....there's nothing left to inhabit. If you're using the flood as an example: it was the living creatures that were the object of God's wrath, not the physical earth, so we should expect the same with the wrath poured out on the "Great and terrible Day of the Lord".


Unfortunately full-preterists are forced to "invisible-ize" that passage in order to stuff it into some imagined importance to the 1st century sacking of a 2nd rate city (and it's symbolic pile-of-rocks temple) that the world didn't even miss when it passed. Only you preterists MUST "invisible-ize" God's promise of a literal new heaven and earth, a renewed creation that is perfect instead of just merely "very good". (Why such a problem with anything being in the future?)

The preterist must also "invisible-ize" God's glorious promise to the rest of His creation:
Romans 8
19 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. Perhaps there's an invisible earth where all those animals really live and the ones we see are just imagined.Cursed is the ground for your sake; In toil you shall eat of it All the days of your life.

Your own eyes bear witness that the bondage of corruption remains and gets worse every generation! So the deliverance from it absolutely remains in the future. God never intended for His other creatures to kill to eat and/or to be eaten themselves. But he cares about mankind most so He delivered them first. God HATES sin and all it's consequences on the rest of what He owns! Whatever made the full-preterist believe that He is willing to let it continue on forever?

I understand why the preterist despises the "Hollywood-izing" of prophecy by the typical futurist. Its embarrassing! But that doesn't mean it's all wrong in concept. They believe the same Gospel, have the same Spirit and read the same word as you.

ALL men make mistakes interpreting scripture. Including the preterist who over-symbolizes just like many futurists over-literalize.

Peace brother Joe!

DaveO

If you want to know the answer to that question I highlighted in red, look at Rev. 22: which takes place after the Old heaven, and earth flee from before the face of God, and after death and hell are thrown in the Lake of Fire, and after New Jerusalem comes down from heaven....
Rev. 22:13-15 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.....what I see is all manner of sin still in existence OUTSIDE the gates of the New Jerusalem. So my friend, your sarcasim is totally unfounded...:no:
We Preterists didn't make it up, we just get our information from the Bible.

God Bless,

Rose

[DaveO]

Hello Rose,



....what I see is all manner of sin still in existence OUTSIDE the gates of the New Jerusalem. So my friend, your sarcasim is totally unfounded...
We Preterists didn't make it up, we just get our information from the Bible.

Again, your vision has ONLY humans invisibly enjoying the benefits of the invisible new heaven/earth/Jerusalem. All the rest of creation that is still in bondage from the result of mankind's sins is left outside to continue to suffer along with the dogs, whoremongers etc.

Sorry, but that in no way explains this:


Romans 8
19 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. .

:confused:

I'm too am not making it up but getting my information from the bible.


DaveO

[Rose]

Hello Rose,



Again, your vision has ONLY humans invisibly enjoying the benefits of the invisible new heaven and earth. All the rest of creation that is suffering from the result of mankind's sins is left outside with the dogs, whoremongers etc.

Sorry, but that in no way explains this:
Romans 8
19 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. .

:confused:

DaveO


It's not my vision....it's what the Bible teaches!

If you notice in the verses I quoted, that the gates of the city are never shut, and the call to come and partake of the living waters is given to ANYONE who will enter in. That is the deliverance for all of creation from the bondage of corruption! Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today, and FOREVER....

Many blessings to you,

Rose

[CWH]

Precisely Rose,

This is exactly what I mean by the end of creation and a new creation of the world commence after the great and dreadful day of Lord i.e. the end of the world. Just like what happened after the great flood, all creation were destroyed a new creation from the old commenced:


Rose said:
The point that I see is not whether the waters of the flood covered the entire earth, but did it destroy the physical earth? The answer is absolutely NO! As soon the waters receded the earth was able to be inhabited again, much of the plant life probably survived (a little water logged

Just like the forest fire that is currently burning in California, when the fire has burned itself out and everything in it's fiery heat, new plant life will soon emerged from the burnt soil. This is the same with what will happen after the great and dreadful day of the Lord; a new creation will emerged once the old creation has been destroyed....a new heaven and a new earth. As in the days of Noah when the great flood engulfed the whole world, the great and dreadful day of the Lord will be a world event and it will engulf the whole world. So will be the coming of the Son of Man, it will be a world event. For as the lightning is visible from the east to the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man; everyone living in the world will see him coming!

Matthew 24:27:
For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.

Many Blessings to all.

[DaveO]

It's not my vision....it's what the Bible teaches!

If you notice in the verses I quoted, that the gates of the city are never shut, and the call to come and partake of the living waters is given to ANYONE who will enter in. That is the deliverance for all of creation from the bondage of corruption! Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today, and FOREVER....

Many blessings to you,

Rose

And that's what I mean about "invisiblizing". Your view is only for everyONE not everyTHING. Please explain how the curse of death brought on by man's sin has been lifted from God's other creatures.

DaveO

[TheForgiven]

Joe???

Quote:

We do not know if the entire earth was completely covered in water. Theologists suggest that only that region of the world was covered in water, and not necessarily the entire globe.
Which theologians are those? (Perhaps they are among those "falling away" that Paul warned would happen.)

Genesis 7
19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered. 20 The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered. 21 And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man.


This was on a program about Noah's ark I watched a few years ago. Some speculated that the old America's were not touched by the flood. If I'm not mistaken, this legend came from the Indians, but I do not for certain. But I myself did not say the earth wasn't entirely flooded, but that there were theologians who speculated that the region Noah lived in was destroyed. I myself believe that the entire world was flooded, probably because mountains during those days were not as tall as they are 6000 years later.

Interestingly enough, the modern day Mt. Ararat is not the actual mountain Noah's ark came to rest in. Scholars are still searching for the ark, but based on the latest research available, I believe the ark came to rest between Iran and Iraq, in a section of ancient lava flow in Al-Cudi. Documents exists which show that this region was once dominated by extravagant lava fields, otherwise known as "Ararat", or "Mountains of Lava".

OK, I drifted from the topic, but this has always fascinated me. Anyways, I myself do believe that the entire earth was flooded, but that wasn't the point Jesus was making. His point was about surprise attack, and not volume attack.



Quote:
So is God going to wipe out every single thing in the entire universe because of the faults of a single globe?
How do we know what satan may or may not have done in the rest of creation? (John 8:44 He [satan] was a murderer from the beginning...)

I don't follow you in this my friend. Are you suggesting that Satan is the one who destroys the earth?


Quote:
Nope! And there's no scripture to even accidentally suggest that.
Uhhh.... Not accidentally but definitely on purpose!

2 Peter 3:
7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

"Earth" or "Land". Which interpretation is correct? According to Old Testament passages, such as Isiah chapter 1, Heaven is God's Throne, and Israel represents the earth/land, just as Gentiles represent the "Sea".

Thus, Heaven is God's Throne, but Israel was God's place of rest; for God's spirit once rested there. But His Spirit was removed, and now abides in the hearts of men. My point being that Heave is God's Throne, and Israel is the earth which served as a footstool, or place of rest. Now that former Israel no longer exists, God's Spirit finds rest on the new land flowing with milk and honey.....that is, the Kingdom of Christ, or the Church. Thus, the old heaven and old earth were done away with. The former earth (Israel) was destroyed, and melted away in the horrific fire. The New Earth is the Israel of God.

Of course you can keep choosing to watch the skies and look for falling stars to destroy the earth. As for me, I'm not worried about that, and neither should you be. It will never happen according to your understanding. Besides, the water the purified the earth during Noah's day, is the same fire that purified the earth in Christ's day. This fire came in the form of trials and persecutions. God was refining gold through the fires.....what is left is purified gold.


Just as the flood LITERALLY covered the whole world with real WET water, that prophesied end will LITERALLY be with real HOT BURNING fire.


Prove it. You're stating something as factual but based off a single verse that is more than likely misinterpreted. Funny how I don't recall any of the early church fathers ever talking about the entire world being destroyed by fire. Not saying there hasn't been, but I've found no evidence of this British/American teaching.


Unfortunately full-preterists are forced to "invisible-ize" that passage in order to stuff it into some imagined importance to the 1st century sacking of a 2nd rate city (and it's symbolic pile-of-rocks temple) that the world didn't even miss when it passed. Only you preterists MUST "invisible-ize" God's promise of a literal new heaven and earth, a renewed creation that is perfect instead of just merely "very good". (Why such a problem with anything being in the future?)

The preterist must also "invisible-ize" God's glorious promise to the rest of His creation:

I'm I'm not mistaken, the Greek word used for "Earth" could also be interpreted "Land"...i.e. geographical Israel. And Biblically speaking, Israel has always been identified as the earth.


Isaiah 1:

1 The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah.

2 Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth!
For the LORD has spoken:

The vision of Isaiah was from Heaven, directed at the earth...Israel, which is the "breadth of the earth".


Romans 8
19 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

Perhaps there's an invisible earth where all those animals really live and the ones we see are just imagined.

During Paul's life, what was more dominant? Sin, or righteousness? What do you believe is more dominant now? When I ask this, consider NOT the amount of sinners, but the differences in Kingdoms. During Paul's day, the only land containing the righteous was Israel of the flesh, yet even that was corrupted, and only a remnant (such as Noah's family) were considered righteous. But thanks to their hard work, righteousness was established all over the inhabited earth. By the preaching of the Gospel, the righteous being established by faith spread throughout the earth, and performs as Paul suggests, "revealing the sons of God". The Sons of God existed in Noah's day, but because the land was subjected to sin, righteousness died leaving only Noah and his family left. But the acts of Jesus was the exact OPPOSITE of what Satan did to Adam and Eve. Satan gave birth to sin, and sin abounded. Christ gave birth to righteousness, and abounded by grace. Through the preaching of the Gospels, the sons of God were restored as they made more and more disciples, thereby refilling the world with the "sons of God".

Of course, when you read about being released from corruption, you're assumption is on physical things, and not spiritual truths. Your presentation suggests that God's purpose was to stop the apple tree from dying, as well as all the other plant life that currently dies. Huh, but did you notice something in Revelation? How can the Tree of life produce 12 crops a month? It something can still be grown, then obviously it can decay, or at least be consumed. What happen to eternity? Why would crops still be grown in eternity if they are not needed? Or would you suggest that even in eternity, pleasures of food will still abide? Wasn't it Paul who said, "Food for the stomach, and stomach for the food; yet God will destroy both"?

Think about it.


Cursed is the ground for your sake; In toil you shall eat of it All the days of your life.

Jesus lifted that curse.


Your own eyes bear witness that the bondage of corruption remains and gets worse every generation! So the deliverance from it absolutely remains in the future. God never intended for His other creatures to kill to eat and/or to be eaten themselves. But he cares about mankind most so He delivered them first. God HATES sin and all it's consequences on the rest of what He owns! Whatever made the full-preterist believe that He is willing to let it continue on forever?

Gee....I seem to recall Jesus eating fish (breakfast) AFTER he was resurrected. Did I miss something? :D


I understand why the preterist despises the "Hollywood-izing" of prophecy by the typical futurist. Its embarrassing! But that doesn't mean it's all wrong in concept. They believe the same Gospel, have the same Spirit and read the same word as you.

ALL men make mistakes interpreting scripture. Including the preterist who over-symbolizes just like many futurists over-literalize.

Peace brother Joe!


Agreed, but we Preterist often admit when we've made a mistake. Believe me, I've made my fair share of them, but I press on, correct my errors, and continue. Not so with the Futurist. They'll make false predictions, and then after it fails to come to pass, they jump right back on their horses and aim at new predictions. Yet we Preterist are wrong???? :eek:

Naaaa...I prefer to think of us as misunderstood.

Joe

P.S. I'll make spelling/grammar corrections this evening. GOD BLESS!

[Rose]

And that's what I mean about "invisiblizing". Your view is only for everyONE not everyTHING. Please explain how the curse of death brought on by man's sin has been lifted from God's other creatures.

DaveO

The answer to your question is obtained by using the verse from Romans that you quoted:
Romans 8:19
For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

The text says that "creation" is eagerly waiting for the revelation of the sons of God, and who are the sons of God? None other than the Bride of Christ, the New Jerusalem!

When the sons of God are revealed, then all of creation will be delivered into the "glorious liberty" that has been manifest by their revelation.

God Bless,

Rose

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

Hi DaveO

The point that I see is not whether the waters of the flood covered the entire earth, but did it destroy the physical earth? The answer is absolutely NO! As soon the waters receded the earth was able to be inhabited again, much of the plant life probably survived (a little water logged :p).

We have a whole different scenario with HOT BURNING FIRE :sFi_flamethrower:
especially the kind that MELTS everything.....there's nothing left to inhabit. If you're using the flood as an example: it was the living creatures that were the object of God's wrath, not the physical earth, so we should expect the same with the wrath poured out on the "Great and terrible Day of the Lord".

If you want to know the answer to that question I highlighted in red, look at Rev. 22: which takes place after the Old heaven, and earth flee from before the face of God, and after death and hell are thrown in the Lake of Fire, and after New Jerusalem comes down from heaven....
Rev. 22:13-15 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.....what I see is all manner of sin still in existence OUTSIDE the gates of the New Jerusalem. So my friend, your sarcasim is totally unfounded...:no:
We Preterists didn't make it up, we just get our information from the Bible.

God Bless,

Rose

Rose:

Good post. I wish I could learn to be as concise.
I might add that we get our information and help interpreting from the Holy Spirit within us.
New Heavens and New earth of New Jerusalem and 'new covenant" are contrasted against the Jewish old world of the law which condemns. Babylon is old Jerusalem while the New Jerusalem is with the spirits of the reborn believers.

As one inductively breaks down the scope and message of 2 Peter, the emphasis is different to the original audience of that jewish world still under law than it is when we try to read the surface and to our current world.

The scoffers only date their "WORLD" back to the fathers of the nation; i.e either Moses/Joshua or Abraham/Isaac Jacob. Most likely Moses/Joshua who led them out of egypt and into the land of travels. The scoffers are saying where is the promise of his coming ??? Our nation persevered through the captivity of Babylon, through times of troubles.....we are invincible. (and they wished to rule more than their "world".)

This I believe is what the attitude of the Scoffers was at that time and to which Peter said that God had the power to end the world that was before Noah, so also if he says, he would end the jewish nation and their world that was based on the old covenant.

To Joe:

What I have to do sometimes, is go directly to the Holy Spirit and tell him personally and privately that what I'm reading seems difficult to assymilate with other parts of scripture and with the Holy Spirits teaching that is within me up to this point or even what others are teaching as doctrine. I have to tell him that I am willing to believe and receive what this passage appears to teach on the surface even if it apparently goes against the consensus of the other scriptures and what I've learned from Him thus far, and I would then have to readjust and refine other learnings and perspectives. I then ask him to reveal and help guide me to understand the truth of the passage. I have to submit this to His will for their are times when other truths are intended to be learned before a passage can be taught by the Spirit.

Romans 9-11 is one such passage that I had to be confess to him to be willing to recieve as a pro-zionist, pro futurist passage if indeed that is what it stated. After much inductive study, word defining, (such as the word "so" and "fullness") and patiently laying it at his feet, He wonderfully revealed that passage as supporting the end of old national covenant and the deliverence of the new covenant people. They key that unlocked it was seeing how Paul quoted from Duet 32:21 in Romans 10:19 and then finding out what Deut 30-32 was talking about. None of Romans 9-11 is eschatolgical. In that sense the passage is revealed to be directly non pro-zionist.

Since your interpretation of this passage in 2 Peter (and all interpretations) ultimately effect YOU (Joe) or Me and your very own personal future and spiritual life; could you also take this passage and go to the Holy Spirit and explain to him that other seemingly sincere brothers are solidly content, confident and in a Spirit of Peace that it does not mean what it appears to mean from the first surface reading. Could you, state TO HIM that you are willing to receive a different message from this passage than what your currently have? Would you define words such as "world" etc..etc..

Often times different people make posts of their interpretations and perspectives both to defend that perspective and attempt to persuade or convince the other person of their perspective. But in the Covenant of Mercy, completely and fully established at the cross, being sealed by the Spirit, the Holy Spirit is the teacher and teaches individually. The Spirit is responsible for the teaching and each Person is responsible for their own lives and for acquiring Gods truth upon which to build that life. (Each one will know (knows, John 17:3) me, each one will be, IS, taught by ME he says; each one will die for their own sins; not the sins of the nation; each one lives by Christs righteousness)

If a person is not open and Willing in his mind and Spirit to request of the Spirit if his/her interpretation is what the author and what God the Holy Spirit was trying to convey, all amount of posts defending or explaining a different perspective will fall mute. Just as the Pharisees and Sanhedrin longed to sit in the seat of Moses and interpret and judge over the scriptures, so also men today can be guilty of the same thing rather than asking and requesting the Spirit for HIS meaning.

God accepts, forgives and indwells us before we have the 'right' answers. So then we can request his truth without fear of wrath if we are willing to know and do his truth. (that may be the key)

God in this present age, does give teachers, but he does not give indoctrinators. A Spirit filled teacher would not indoctrinate, but lead the person on his walk with His God.

As a good Math teacher that I had was noted for saying; "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink".

Peace to you as you pursue His truth concerning what is meant by New Heavens and New earth for your life.

[DaveO]

Gee....I seem to recall Jesus eating fish (breakfast) AFTER he was resurrected. Did I miss something?

Jesus did nothing that was contrary to God at that time.


Genesis 9:
2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand. 3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you.

Like I said, deliverance for the rest of God's creation remains future. That's not how God intended it to be and it will be changed back to that:


John 14:2
In My Father’s house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

Yep! That's what our Lord is doing right now.

Isaiah 65
17 ' For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth;
And the former shall not be remembered or come to mind.

If this is that new heaven and earth there sure is a lot "remembering and coming to mind" of the old ones still going on...:D

And of course while we're enjoying His reign on earth (Christ ruling from the throne of David) waiting on that newly CREATED heaven and earth to be revealed, God's creatures will have gone back to NOT being eaten and eating each other like God intended when he made them:


25 The wolf and the lamb shall feed together,
The lion shall eat straw like the ox,
And dust shall be the serpent’s food.

Isaiah 11
6 ' The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb,
The leopard shall lie down with the young goat,
The calf and the young lion and the fatling together;
And a little child shall lead them.
7 The cow and the bear shall graze;
Their young ones shall lie down together;
And the lion shall eat straw like the ox.

Later in Isaiah 11 you see the last battle with satan just as in Revelations where you see FIRST the natural kingdom then the "spiritual" kingdom. Then satan is defeated along with ALL DEATH (yes, even for the animals God ALSO cares deeply for) THEN the newly created heaven is revealed.

There is absolutely nothing ambiguous or symbolic about those verses in Romans 8. So I for one will just take God at His Word when it is so obviously literal. :D

Methinks the problem with many full-preterists is that they just got tired of waiting and found an explanation that satisfied their impatience for finality in their lifetime.

DaveO

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

2 Peter 3:
7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Just as the flood LITERALLY covered the whole world with real WET water, that prophesied end will LITERALLY be with real HOT BURNING fire.


Hi Dave O, Since I had mentioned Peters text, I hope you dont' mind my offering my perspective.

Is the analogy that your making the same analagy that Peter wished to make?
Or was Peter focusing on the fact that the 'scoffers' were minimizing the power of God to accomplish whatever changes that were to come? They were willingly ignorant that there was a previous world which ended, so also the present world which Peter states in their minds began with the Patriarchs and Moses could also come to an end. In thier haughtiness of being sons of Abraham....or followers of Moses; .. they scoffed a the idea of an end to their nation and their Heavens and earth...themselves.

Read and study the passage from the very beginning of the chapter. I've interjected some comments into the text at the bottom.

It's likely that we'll still differ based on different inductive principles of hermenutics and interpretation.

But your defense and support of the literal interpretation doesn't follow the topic and the logic that Peter is presenting and thus is a weak defense.



Romans 8
19 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. Perhaps there's an invisible earth where all those animals really live and the ones we see are just imagined.

Cursed is the ground for your sake; In toil you shall eat of it All the days of your life.

This is contrasted with the prophecies of the New Covenant which state that a man can enjoy the fruits of his/her labor. Before the fall Adam was a gatherer and likely had to provide for himself. Afterwords, things just got a little tougher. After the cross, the righteous by faith are and were free from old covenant law and from the curse of the law of Adam to enjoy the fruit of their labors. The level of this enjoyment of ones labor varies greatly depending on several factors. But their are numerous prophecies that declared that after the old covenant was judged and the people of the new covenant were given freedom that they would prosper and enjoy the fruits of their labors in freedom. We sometimes only hear of the continued persecutions of the church, but the evidence is also there of a flourishing, joyous and vibrant society.


Your own eyes bear witness that the bondage of corruption remains and gets worse every generation! So the deliverance from it absolutely remains in the future. God never intended for His other creatures to kill to eat and/or to be eaten themselves. But he cares about mankind most so He delivered them first. God HATES sin and all it's consequences on the rest of what He owns! Whatever made the full-preterist believe that He is willing to let it continue on forever?
I dont' agree that the 'bondage of corruption continually gets worse. That is a fallacy of dispensational teaching which says that the law is king and each dispensation failed in the law that was given to it until God made a new dispensation. The way of Life of grace through faith says that righteousness by faith/and faiths response was successful in every dispensation. (Hebrews 11) Each child of God is a new creature and new creation apart from the law of sin and death. Yes, we die, but because of Jesus' resurrection, Paul says where o death is your sting?. If you life is not perhaps getting stronger and successful in righteousness by faith (not against the law) and faiths walk in the Spriit, perhaps a readjustment of perspective might be in order and especially a re-indoctrination apart from failing focus of dispensationalism and the future rule of Judaism. Get out from the weeds of false teaching of Judaism of the law.


I dont' think full preterists feel it continues forever; for the span of a mans life is 70-80 plus years. Then comes the reaping what is sown in the Spirit. (I cor 15) But AS Ezekiel 14 says, the individual children of God who survived the sword that came upon Jerusalem were sons and daughters of righteousness through faith, just like Noah, Job and Daniel. Each one is accountable for their own deliverence. I think and believe it is the children of the individualized new covenant of forgiven sins and being declared righteous who are the children of God that are mentioned in Romans which you quote above. If the creation does not dance at least a little or at least sometimes for you as a child of God, perhaps your will has not submitted to His will according to His purpose (rom 8:28) The chapter of Ezekiel says for the world to look and see what manner of people they were to be.


ALL men make mistakes interpreting scripture. Including the preterist who over-symbolizes just like many futurists over-literalize.

Peace brother Joe!

This is a very true statement, but as of yet I'm not persuaded in view of the context of the chapter and the historical context, and Hebrew and prophetic mindset of the original believing audience that Peter was talking about what you say that he was. This would be ESPECIALLY in light of Isaiah 65 and 66 testimony of the New Heavens and New earth coming after the destruction of the temple. This is the new heavesn and new earth of the new covenant established at the cross that Peter is referring to.

In Daniels prophecy about the messiah to confirm the covennat during the 70th week there are hebrew tenses of cause and effect. It was the establishment of the new covenant and it's neccessary new heaven and new earth which were outside of the old covenant of Law which neccessitated the end of the nation of Israel and the end of the old world of law.

This is what Hebrews talks about which I mentioned in the other post. He taketh away the OLD which then in Peters day still were, in order to establish the New.

Perhaps we are not fully willing to let go of the 'old' and the way of self justification by law.




2 Peter 3

1This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:

Apparently there were some things covered in the first Epistle that he wished to renew their minds about.



2That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:

What he has to say would have been written about by the prophets of Israel before him. Remember, Peter is writing to the Jews likely in Judea of the old covenant laws and land..

Peter is also the one who told those people in Jerusalem about 25 years earlier that all who did not hear the Prophet (Jesus) would be cut off from the land. (Acts 3)



3Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

Why does Peter want THEM to whom he is writing to in about 60 AD to be aware of something first, if what is going to happen will not be effecting their lives.???



4And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

Here Peter says what the scoffers are denying and that is the power of God. They are WILLINGLY ignorant of the story of God saving Noah as a Righteous through faith individual; and causing the rest of the world to Perish. They begin their perspective of their World with 'the fathers", meaning the fathers of the nation either referring to Moses/Joshua or perhaps back to Abraham..etc.


5For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

6Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:


7But the heavens and the earth, (their world) which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
These I believe are the heavens and "land" of the old covenant. Their World.



8But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. This seems to be an obvious figure of speech saying that one day may feel like a thousand years and a thousand years of history may pass by like a day.



9The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Notice the 'us-ward' Why would Peter emphazise this to include his original readers (and in jerusalem and judea) including the yet elect individuals of then yet unbelieving Israel of 60 AD which Paul talks about in Romans 11



10But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

Yes, I can very much understand the difficulty to not literalize this: but again this is written to a Jewish mind who has been under the covenant of the promised land and the oppression of the law and commandment for generations. Could the great noise be the "trump"... I dont' know...But I think this has an air of emphatic language to it.



11Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,

12Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

Why were they to be be looking for and hastening the coming day of God if it were to be 2000 plus years in the future.??? Obviously the Gold of the temple melted with heat, but some say that it was the elemental laws that were empowered from Heaven which 'melted'. Similar in principle to how the earthquake at Christ's death signified a physical change for those of faith, from being guilty to not guilty from Heavens courts.



13Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

Again, the whole tone as a chapter is written as if it were to be understood by those to whom it was first addressed to. Thus the WE were judean believers who were oppressed and persecuted by the judaizers, even hounded and would yet suffer persecution before the protection of the New laws of Heaven would take effect.

The new heavens and new earth In my understanding are forementioned in Isaiah 65 and 66. Both these and Isaiah 1 prophecy about the time of the last days of the temple. For instance, Isaiah 66:6 says: a voice from the city, a voice from the temple refer to voices (demonic or angelic) and other phenomenon which came from the temple during the last passover season before the seige. For the last years before the desolation a man named "Jesus" daily ran through the city proclaiming it's woes during what was a time of particular prosperity and festivity. Though scourged and beaten he continued for what I think was 7 years prior to the Ezekiel 14 also talks about the sword that comes to Jerusalem and the children of God who inhabit the area afterward.

Again, even though you've emphatically stated your position, the inductive analysis of the passages does not support that position as strongly as you feel.

[joel]

Good question.
So that we are on the same page; What in your mind is/was the "old covenant"? or 'the first covenant".
There have been others I have discussed this with who have confused prophecies and statements by God about the formation of the nation that were given to Abraham with the actual covenant offered to and contracted by the people/nation themselves. So what in your mind is the 'old covenant' which Hebrews talks about through most of chapters 4-10?
The answer is right in Jeremiah 31 or Heb 10 when he says how the old covenant started.

Hebrews does indeed say in chapter 8:
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. Ready is eggos. Strongs says
2) of time
a) of times imminent and soon to come pass

Since this was written in 60 AD we would be rational to assume that this meant imminent at that time and imminent to the original readers.

CAN WE AGREE TO THIS POINT?

No.

This is the basis for many disagreements..........the old covenant (the first) is in a constant state of decay and turning old, but, it has not been permanently put out of the way.

It is compared to the earth and the heavens which now are........they too are
in such a state.
See Hebrews 1:11, where the writer is contrasting the Lord with the works of His hands.......they (the works) are made "old", but have not yet vanished. They (the works) are in a constant state of decay, and are in a state of anticipation, awaiting an event which will liberate them from the anticipation, i.e. the adoption (huiosthesia)...see Romans 8:9.

The problem that I have with the view that the first (old) was eliminated, abrogated, taken out of the way completely......is that places the wrong emphasis on an event happening after these things were written, and, takes our focus away from the central, all-inclusive event, the sacrifice of Christ.

I ask you to look again at Hebrews 8:13.

Joel

[Rose]

No.

This is the basis for many disagreements..........the old covenant (the first) is in a constant state of decay and turning old, but, it has not been permanently put out of the way.

It is compared to the earth and the heavens which now are........they too are
in such a state.
See Hebrews 1:11, where the writer is contrasting the Lord with the works of His hands.......they (the works) are made "old", but have not yet vanished. They (the works) are in a constant state of decay, and are in a state of anticipation, awaiting an event which will liberate them from the anticipation, i.e. the adoption (huiosthesia)...see Romans 8:9.

The problem that I have with the view that the first (old) was eliminated, abrogated, taken out of the way completely......is that places the wrong emphasis on an event happening after these things were written, and, takes our focus away from the central, all-inclusive event, the sacrifice of Christ.

I ask you to look again at Hebrews 8:13.

Joel

Hi Joel,

I not quite sure I get what your saying: "is that places the wrong emphasis on an event happening after these things were written,". :confused:

Doesn't any viewpoint look ahead beyond when those things were written? The Bible was written in a finite period of time about events that were to occur at a latter point, so no matter when we think those events happened or will happen it is after those things were written.

God Bless

Rose

[joel]

It is a matter of what you look at, and, what you speak of as being a focal event.

There is the sacrificial giving up of Himself, the cross, the resurrection, His ascension......then, Pentecost.....and the events recorded in Acts, and everything else which may be a matter of scriptural record. Let us focus on that.....and then testify concerning those things.

The focus on 70 A.D. is a distraction.

Let us examine the particular words used in Hebrews.........starting with what is the focal point......Hebrews 8:13.....is the first covenant totally done away with??

Joel

[Rose]

It is a matter of what you look at, and, what you speak of as being a focal event.

There is the sacrificial giving up of Himself, the cross, the resurrection, His ascension......then, Pentecost.....and the events recorded in Acts, and everything else which may be a matter of scriptural record. Let us focus on that.....and then testify concerning those things.

The focus on 70 A.D. is a distraction.

Let us examine the particular words used in Hebrews.........starting with what is the focal point......Hebrews 8:13.....is the first covenant totally done away with??

Joel

Yes, it must be. When Paul was speaking those words the center of the Law, "the Temple" was still functioning as the point which Jewish life revolved around. As long as the Temple stood, the Old Covenant was still in existence, it stood before their eyes....they could see it. Not until the visual manifestation of the Law (the Temple) was obliterated would the Old be completely vanished away. That is why the focus on the stones of the Temple coming down is important....Jesus was the one who brought its importance to their attention!

Heb. 8:13 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.

God Bless,

Rose

[alec cotton]

Joel said ,"Is the old covenant totally done away with?"

Rose answered " Yes it must be". Why "must"..

I have been trying for some time ,in other threads to address this subject but no one seems willing to give a straight answer. What is the new covenant and how does it compare with the old one . Is the law of Moses obsolete?. Are we to discard the law of Moses in its entirety?. Is it obsolete?. Can we ignore the Law?. Are we ordered to keep that law?. Every time I address this question ,everybody takes to the dance floor and all start to hop jump and waltz. It seems like a straightforeward question to me .Any crarification welcome.
Alec

[gregoryfl]

Joel said ,"Is the old covenant totally done away with?"

Rose answered " Yes it must be". Why "must"..

I have been trying for some time ,in other threads to address this subject but no one seems willing to give a straight answer. What is the new covenant and how does it compare with the old one . Is the law of Moses obsolete?. Are we to discard the law of Moses in its entirety?. Is it obsolete?. Can we ignore the Law?. Are we ordered to keep that law?. Every time I address this question ,everybody takes to the dance floor and all start to hop jump and waltz. It seems like a straightforeward question to me .Any crarification welcome.
Alec

The problem is that until someone truly wants to know, and is seeing the futility behind what they currently believe, any answer that anyone gives to you, or anyone about the law that does not agree with your current understanding will be ignored. I know from experience, for I spent a good part of my life in the Worldwide Church of God, which in those days kept the law, not just the ten commandments, but also the holy days, and the triple tithe, and only separated the ceremonial and sacrificial parts of the Law as being fulfilled in Christ, with the ten commandments being still a standard to be kept.

As long as I held to that, no matter what anyone said, no matter what scripture was brought to my attention, I always had an answer to get around it. It will be no different here.

Ron

[joel]

Yes, it must be. When Paul was speaking those words the center of the Law, "the Temple" was still functioning as the point which Jewish life revolved around. As long as the Temple stood, the Old Covenant was still in existence, it stood before their eyes....they could see it. Not until the visual manifestation of the Law (the Temple) was obliterated would the Old be completely vanished away. That is why the focus on the stones of the Temple coming down is important....Jesus was the one who brought its importance to their attention!

Heb. 8:13 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.

God Bless,

Rose
------------------------------------------------------------
In εν G1722 en 55
that he saith, λεγω G3004 lego 838
A new καινος G2537 kainos 351
[covenant], he hath made παλαιοω G3822 palaioo 992
the first πρωτος G4413 protos 1550
old. παλαιοω G3822 palaioo 992
Now δε G1161 de 9
that which decayeth παλαιοω G3822 palaioo 992
and και G2532 kai 31
waxeth old γηρασκω G1095 gerasko 1132
[is] ready εγγυς G1451 eggus 611
to vanish away. αφανισμος G0854 aphanismos 1072

He has made the first "old".......palaioo
it is ready to vanish.......aphanismos

It does not say.......as you and others assert.....that it is put out of the way. The writer would have used other words if that were so......

The temple is not mentioned in Hebrews.......the focus is the sacrifice of Christ......and His current minstry from the heavens.

You are assuming that Paul wrote Hebrews. That is an assertion that cannot be proved.

In another place, Paul says that when Moses is read now, continuing in effect, the veil remains upon the words that are written. The effect is on-going.(II Cor. 3:13-14).

The first covenant has been made old..........it is "rendered idle" (katargeo). It does not day anywhere that I have found that it is eliminated.

To make that assertion gives the wrong impression.

Joel

[Rose]

------------------------------------------------------------
In εν G1722 en 55
that he saith, λεγω G3004 lego 838
A new καινος G2537 kainos 351
[covenant], he hath made παλαιοω G3822 palaioo 992
the first πρωτος G4413 protos 1550
old. παλαιοω G3822 palaioo 992
Now δε G1161 de 9
that which decayeth παλαιοω G3822 palaioo 992
and και G2532 kai 31
waxeth old γηρασκω G1095 gerasko 1132
[is] ready εγγυς G1451 eggus 611
to vanish away. αφανισμος G0854 aphanismos 1072

He has made the first "old".......palaioo
it is ready to vanish.......aphanismos

It does not say.......as you and others assert.....that it is put out of the way. The writer would have used other words if that were so......

The temple is not mentioned in Hebrews.......the focus is the sacrifice of Christ......and His current minstry from the heavens.

You are assuming that Paul wrote Hebrews. That is an assertion that cannot be proved.

In another place, Paul says that when Moses is read now, continuing in effect, the veil remains upon the words that are written. The effect is on-going.(II Cor. 3:13-14).



The Temple does not need to be mentioned in order to know that it was still standing, and it does not matter if Paul wrote Hebrews or someone else did. The point of the matter is that what was vanishing away was the Old Covenant, which was the Law, and the Temple represented the Law. The Covenant keeping Jew had to keep the Law which included the Feasts and the sacrifices. All of those things could only be done at the Temple in Jerusalem.



The first covenant has been made old..........it is "rendered idle" (katargeo). It does not day anywhere that I have found that it is eliminated.

To make that assertion gives the wrong impression.

Joel

The reason that it does not say it has been eliminated is because at the point Paul was speaking of the Old vanishing away it had not been eliminated yet! The Temple was still standing, which represented the Old.

Rose

[joel]

For clarification purposes, let me state;

1.) In no way do I believe that the law of Moses must be obeyed today to gain favor with God,
2.) Justification is through faith....not by works of law.
3.) Righteousness is reckoned on the basis of faith, not by works of law.
4.) The anticipated inheritance is on the basis faith, not by works of law.

5.) The law, however, and the covenant (old) remain. Not for you, nor for me......for the law was not given for a righteous one.

6.) The new covenant is in effect, and we are ministers of its efficacy.
7.) However, the new covenant is yet to be ratified with the house of Israel and the house of Judah when God will place within their hearts, and minds His law. We are a part of the ministration of the spirit. God's spirit is residing within us as Christ's body.

[Rose]

For clarification purposes, let me state;

1.) In no way do I believe that the law of Moses must be obeyed today to gain favor with God,
2.) Justification is through faith....not by works of law.
3.) Righteousness is reckoned on the basis of faith, not by works of law.
4.) The anticipated inheritance is on the basis faith, not by works of law.

5.) The law, however, and the covenant (old) remain. Not for you, nor for me......for the law was not given for a righteous one.

6.) The new covenant is in effect, and we are ministers of its efficacy.
7.) However, the new covenant is yet to be ratified with the house of Israel and the house of Judah when God will place within their hearts, and minds His law. We are a part of the ministration of the spirit. God's spirit is residing within us as Christ's body.


How can the Old Covenant, which is the Law still be in effect? In order for a Jew to keep the Law the requirements were to keep the Feasts and the sacrifices at the Temple in Jerusalem....neither of which can be kept now.

The keeping of the Law was a very strict thing, and punishable by death if it was not kept. How can you justify the claim that the Law is still in effect for the Jew, when no one in fact can keep it?

God bless,

Rose

[joel]

How can you justify the claim that the Law is still in effect for the Jew, when no one in fact can keep it?
--------------------------------------------------

Did I say that?

Joel

[Rose]

How can you justify the claim that the Law is still in effect for the Jew, when no one in fact can keep it?
--------------------------------------------------

Did I say that?

Joel

What you said was this: "5.) The law, however, and the covenant (old) remain. Not for you, nor for me......for the law was not given for a righteous one."


So, if the Law remains as you said, who does it remain for?

Rose

[joel]

What you said was this: "5.) The law, however, and the covenant (old) remain. Not for you, nor for me......for the law was not given for a righteous one."


So, if the Law remains as you said, who does it remain for?

Rose
----------------------------------------------------

Read II Corinthians 3 and see if we may have some basis for discussion.
Joel

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

Joel said ,"Is the old covenant totally done away with?"

Rose answered " Yes it must be". Why "must"..

I have been trying for some time ,in other threads to address this subject but no one seems willing to give a straight answer. What is the new covenant and how does it compare with the old one . Is the law of Moses obsolete?. Are we to discard the law of Moses in its entirety?. Is it obsolete?. Can we ignore the Law?. Are we ordered to keep that law?. Every time I address this question ,everybody takes to the dance floor and all start to hop jump and waltz. It seems like a straightforeward question to me .Any crarification welcome.
Alec

I could give you my understanding but you still need to ask the qustion of your teacher, the Holy Spirit to answer these questions.
Which is the "old covenant"?. Paul says that it was 430 yrs after the "promise" given to Abraham. Thus it comes in the time period of the Israelites departure from Egypt.
Two places confirm this:
One is when the prophecy of hte New covenant is given. Take out your bible and go to Jer 31. Ask the Spirit to open your eyes to understanding about various things in the chapter.
"Not like the covenant I made WHEN I TOOK THEM BY THE HAND AND LED THEM OUT OF EGYPT". It basically is saying right there when the ''old' covenant began. But this is only called the 'old covenant' when the words of Jeremiah were spoken (which was during the babylonian captivity and judgment) in which he said that there would be a "new covenant". This is what the writer of Hebrews is explaining when he says that by making a new covenant he has made the former 'old'.

The other place that confirms the 'old' covenant being a land/nation/people covenant is in daniel 9. He uses a similar concept about his concern for his people whom he took by the hand and led out of egypt. Daniel is wondering what will happen to the 'national' people, not neccessarily the people of faith. And then the angel brings the message about the 490 years till "the end" and "latter end" 10:14 of thy people.
1. The new covenant would be individual and about personal sin and atonement for the law of sin/death. (each mans teeth set on edge, each one pay for their own sins) The old was a corporal/national covenant. When the nation of Israel conquered Jericho (I think it was) a certain family held back the abominable thing. (they hid gold). Apparently the entire camp suffered as they could not win in the second battle until they purged the camp of the hidden gold. The 'old' covenant was corporal.
The old covenant was also conditional, based on their keeping all that moses had commanded them. The new covenenat is based on foreknowledge, election, the promise, and God's knowledge of the human spirit which he created. It is 'unconditional" in some aspects, conditioned only basically by faith and active response. (not conditional works to whitewash the outside)
There are more items to glean from Jer 31, but that is sufficient for now.
The summary of the old covenant is found when moses addressed the people on the east side of the Jordan just before they crossed over to become "a people of God". When they accepted the terms of the covenant, they entered into the conditional contract. This is found in just about the whole book of Deuteronomy but to be narrowed down a bit, begin at chapters 11 and go through 32.

AS mentioned, the "new" covenant is only "new" because it is contrasted against the former covenant which was inadequate and based on keeping the law. After the babylonian captivity, the nation of Israel was just going through the motions as they could not do 'all that moses had commanded because they did not have the Ark of the Covenant.

The old covenant was given as a pattern or type of the new. When it was spoken to moses, he was told to make things in the pattern of the things he saw in heaven. A Pattern, not the reality. When Jer 31 says that the new covenant would be NOT LIKE the old covenant, it indicates to me that it would be a covenant contrasting against the land/nation covenant made with the people of Israel.

This is confirmed because all of the 'times and seasons' of the feasts and festivals given to the pattern people were fulfilled during the initiation and confirmation of the "new" covenant from the blood of christ fulfilling the blood over the doorways in Egypt through the next 40 yrs of each respective covenant with the crossing of the Jordan. Old covenant people crossed from east to west, everlasting covenant people crossed from conditinal promised land abolished covenant to the land of all nations/peoples/tongues of the everlasting covenant of mercy

As for the rest of your questions, they can only be answered by you. Romans 7,8 give a look at an internal struggle of a man who now freed from the conditional law looks to please His savior and creator, but now the law is no longer the way to do that and is no longer in effect.....Oh what a wretched man this would be. But thanks be to God that he gave him the Spiirt to lead him into ways of obedience to that spirit to be pleasing to God.... not though law, but through Love.... Gal 5 indicate as similar concept.

The abolishemnt of the law for those who believe is such a repeated theme that one cannot miss it; (Roman 10:4) but at the same time, we recognize that we should not in our freedom suffer for doing wrong to another, but suffer for doing 'good'. The "law of Love, and 'perfect law of liberty remain.

[joel]

I could give you my understanding but you still need to ask the qustion of your teacher, the Holy Spirit to answer these questions.
Which is the "old covenant"?. Paul says that it was 430 yrs after the "promise" given to Abraham. Thus it comes in the time period of the Israelites departure from Egypt.
Two places confirm this:
One is when the prophecy of hte New covenant is given. Take out your bible and go to Jer 31. Ask the Spirit to open your eyes to understanding about various things in the chapter.
"Not like the covenant I made
1. The new covenant would be individual and about personal sin and atonement for the law of sin/death. (each mans teeth set on edge, each one pay for their own sins) The old was a corporal/national covenant. Whe

The question is;

has the old (first) covenant been abrogated, i. e., down away with.....???
The answer is...........No.

So.....then....that being the answer.......;what then???

Joel

[Rose]

What you said was this: "5.) The law, however, and the covenant (old) remain. Not for you, nor for me......for the law was not given for a righteous one."


So, if the Law remains as you said, who does it remain for?

Rose
----------------------------------------------------

Read II Corinthians 3 and see if we may have some basis for discussion.
Joel

Are these the verses you are referring to?
2Cor.3:13-16 And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.
What I understand those verses to be saying is that the eyes of the unbelieving Jew will remain blinded to the truth unless they turn to the Lord, and then the vail of blindness will be removed from their eyes.

I still not sure what you are getting at in wanting me to read 2 Cor.3? Paul was speaking to the Jews of his time, who were still keeping the Law because the Temple was still standing. That has nothing to do with whether or not the Law still remains.

Rose

[joel]

I still not sure what you are getting at in wanting me to read 2 Cor.3? Paul was speaking to the Jews of his time, who were still keeping the Law because the Temple was still standing. That has nothing to do with whether or not the Law still remains.Rose
------------------
Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.


King James Version (KJV)----------------------------------------------------------------

This is where I would ask you to go.......

Joel

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

The question is;

has the old (first) covenant been abrogated, i. e., down away with.....???
The answer is...........No.

So.....then....that being the answer.......;what then???

Joel
What in your mind and or understanding is/was the "old" or former covenant?

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

The question is;

has the old (first) covenant been abrogated, i. e., down away with.....???
The answer is...........No.

So.....then....that being the answer.......;what then???

Joel
Aside from that being written to Alec Cotten;

We are in disagreement with the old covenant being abolished/done away with.

Again, we're also in disagreement with the Hermeneutic principles of Historical/grammatical/literary interpretation. You seem to be skipping the Historical contextual aspects of the original intent to the original addressees.

May the Spirit lead you to all truth.

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

7.) However, the new covenant is yet to be ratified with the house of Israel and the house of Judah when God will place within their hearts, and minds His law. We are a part of the ministration of the spirit. God's spirit is residing within us as Christ's body.

Of this statement, we are in disagreement. Over and over again we were told that the remnant would recieve the covenant and be 'saved', In Duet 30, when the circumcision of the heart was introduced (new covenant) it was done with the House of Israel/judah. But in Jer 31 a few verses before the word 'new covenant' are used, it is noted to be an individual covenant, (each one would pay for their sins) not a corporal covenant which is what the old covenant was. Thus the new covenant can never be to a 'nation' other than the international 'nation' of all believers, but was made when the house of Israel/Judah was restored and intact (as Daniels prayer in chapter 9 accomplished the prerequisites of Deut 30: 1-4) but the new covenant is fulfilled in individuals(not the nation).

At the same time, the house of Israel/Judah were sewn with the seed of men and seed of Beasts.

What does this mean to you???

It also says that the "seed" of Israel would remain as long as the ordinances of earth continued.

Ask yourself what could be the difference between the meanings and applications of the word 'seed' and 'house'.

Since the 'new covenant' was established replaciing the old, and since the new covenant is individual, not corporal as the old, the seed of Israel that is talked about at the end of Jeremiah 31 is the spiritual seed (those of like kind) as the individual man named Jacob/Israel who was renamed with a name meaning like a prince, one who has power with God (son of God) and with man.


The disciples were all jewish as were the first sevearal thousand who rectified their own mortality and it's fear of death through faith in Christ and his resurrection. This is the blood of the "new covenant" which was in times previous to the nation of Israel called "my covenant", and the Edenic covenant of the protoevangelion of Gen 3:15.

Now Read John 1:12-13.

You did however make a good point about too much focus and emphasis on 70 AD and taking away from 30 AD and the cross. 70 AD was in my mind part of the effects of 30 AD and the process of establishing the kingdom of Heaven to individuals 'like Israel' who were given power to become 'sons/daughters of God.. It was also closure and judgment upon 'conditionally seeking a 'kingdom'.

Read Daniel 7 where the judgment sat and favor was given to the saints of the son of Man. This happened after the "beast" warred against the saints and then the favor turned and the saints escaped the desolation by fleeing to Pella.


Take care...... over and out probably as this is going like many previous discussions I've had where both sides try to defend their views at the time. If you are at peace with your view...(weather it be right or wrong, rest in it..).

[TheForgiven]

Greetings EndTimesDeu32.

Is there a name I could use instead of killing my hands typing "EndTimeDeut32"? :lol: My hands aren't that young anymore for typing. :D

Good post. I enjoy reading the clarity you provide in your presentations. I'm wondering what good Ole Richard is up to. He seems to be buried in his work again.

HEY BROTHER RICHARD! GET BACK HERE BRO! :D

I'll post more later guys. Having some health complications again. No, it's not the old ticker again. I suffered a motorcycle accident three years ago, resulting in a broken leg, and shattered ankle. I've got all kinds of hardware installed in my ankle and leg. :eek: But who would have known that after three years, my LEG would STILL BROKEn!!!! :eek:

Got one of those nasty Quarter-Zone (spelling) shots today...hurt....really hurt. They stuck the needle all the way into the ankle joint. Eeeeek! I cringed like a little baby. Was hoping that brother Joel would come and hold my hand. He knows I love him. :D

Anyways, my ankle is still broke after three years, and they're talking about surgery, to give me a new ankle joint. Not sure I'm ready for that, but as long as it helps me walk.

Pray for me guys. :pray:

Joe

[Rose]

Greetings EndTimesDeu32.

Is there a name I could use instead of killing my hands typing "EndTimeDeut32"? :lol: My hands aren't that young anymore for typing. :D

Good post. I enjoy reading the clarity you provide in your presentations. I'm wondering what good Ole Richard is up to. He seems to be buried in his work again.

HEY BROTHER RICHARD! GET BACK HERE BRO! :D

I'll post more later guys. Having some health complications again. No, it's not the old ticker again. I suffered a motorcycle accident three years ago, resulting in a broken leg, and shattered ankle. I've got all kinds of hardware installed in my ankle and leg. :eek: But who would have known that after three years, my LEG would STILL BROKEn!!!! :eek:

Got one of those nasty Quarter-Zone (spelling) shots today...hurt....really hurt. They stuck the needle all the way into the ankle joint. Eeeeek! I cringed like a little baby. Was hoping that brother Joel would come and hold my hand. He knows I love him. :D

Anyways, my ankle is still broke after three years, and they're talking about surgery, to give me a new ankle joint. Not sure I'm ready for that, but as long as it helps me walk.

Pray for me guys. :pray:

Joe

Sorry to hear of your leg and ankle complications.... :sEm_ImSorry:makes me cringe to even think about it...:egad: Here's a big hug from all of us here in Forum land....:grouphug5: and some flowers...:flowers:

Yes, Richard does have his nose stuck in his computer again...:typing: But it's a good thing....he is giving the Bible Wheel web site a much need overhaul and face lift, you will be amazed. :woah: He is still finding time to post everyday...:D

Our prayers are with you :pray:

Rose

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

Greetings EndTimesDeu32.

Is there a name I could use instead of killing my hands typing "EndTimeDeut32"? :lol: My hands aren't that young anymore for typing. :D

D32 would work.
I like people to see the phrase together in my sig name, but would like to find a way to emphasize that this is fulfilled (in the past) I believe this section about the end of the national "Israel", the old covenant and Babylon which judaism had become it is a forerunner to prophecies in Daniel about times of 'the end' (of the old covenant nation) and forerunner to the 'end' mentioned in the Olivet discourse and various things mentioned in the epistles.

Since this is the 'song of Moses' and it is referred to in Revelation as being sung by the saints along with the song of the lamb; we have another strong supporting argument that Rev was referring to the 'end time' of the conditional covenent Jeshurun of Deut 32.

[Rose]

D32 would work.
I like people to see the phrase together in my sig name, but would like to find a way to emphasize that this is fulfilled (in the past) I believe this section about the end of the national "Israel", the old covenant and Babylon which judaism had become it is a forerunner to prophecies in Daniel about times of 'the end' (of the old covenant nation) and forerunner to the 'end' mentioned in the Olivet discourse and various things mentioned in the epistles.

Since this is the 'song of Moses' and it is referred to in Revelation as being sung by the saints along with the song of the lamb; we have another strong supporting argument that Rev was referring to the 'end time' of the conditional covenent Jeshurun of Deut 32.
Rev. 15:3-4 And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints. Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for thou only art holy: for all nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy judgments are made manifest.

I think that is a very good point, since the song of Moses was a prophetic song given to Moses concerning the future of the children of Israel.
Deut. 32:43 Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people: for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, and to his people.

Rose

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

Rev. 15:3-4 And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints. Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for thou only art holy: for all nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy judgments are made manifest.

I think that is a very good point, since the song of Moses was a prophetic song given to Moses concerning the future of the children of Israel.
Deut. 32:42 Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people: for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, and to his people.

Rose
I think that was 32:43, but you got the point. Verse 42 told how he would do that; which is what Joe and I had been discussing.

[Rose]

I think that was 32:43, but you got the point. Verse 42 told how he would do that; which is what Joe and I had been discussing.

Thanks! I edited my post...:)

Rose

[joel]

Aside from that being written to Alec Cotten;

We are in disagreement with the old covenant being abolished/done away with.

Again, we're also in disagreement with the Hermeneutic principles of Historical/grammatical/literary interpretation. You seem to be skipping the Historical contextual aspects of the original intent to the original addressees.

May the Spirit lead you to all truth.

Please D32;

lead me to scripture........simple example(s)......not weighty, wordy tome(s).

Thanks,

Joel

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

Please D32;

lead me to scripture........simple example(s)......not weighty, wordy tome(s).

Thanks,

Joel
Hi Joel,
I referred to many in several responses.

You seem to be focusing on Heb 8 but disregarded the others in this post.
http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showpost.php?p=14634&postcount=10

Throwing scriptures out to support a point is irresponsible without commentary about that point or that scripture. That's one of the reasons for seemingly many 'words'. The 'indoctrinaters' and some cults love to throw out a doctrinal statement and then list scripture behind it to supposedly prop up that doctrine. Sometimes the scripture is taken out of it's contextual/historical meanings to support the doctrine or teaching.

http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showpost.php?p=14787&postcount=36

http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showpost.php?p=14806&postcount=42

Much scripture in those responses; and the question remains, What do YOU identify as the "old covenant".??

The answer is that it is contained in the book of Deuteronomy. If you would want to skip a few chapters read chapters 11-32. BUT YOU have to read that section as a whole and inject it into the history of the nation of Israel.

The old covenant was the pattern of the reality of the covenant of Mercy. But it was both a shadow pattern in some aspects and an anti-thetical pattern.... as described in Jeremiah 31 when he said NOT LIKE the covenant... WHEN did it begin? Answer right there.. in Jer 31.. when I took them by the hand and led them out of egypt.

In that section of Deut, there is a beginning and a prophesied breaking and ending of that covenant, but you have to read it to find it.

So again, before we continue discussion you MUST identify and explain in YOUR mind what the old covenant was; when it started and when its effective support and enactment ended.

It is there in Deuteronomy and aided in understanding by Jeremiah 31; Ez 14 (I think it was that talked about the individuality of the sons/daughters saving and preserving their lives through the desolation of Jerusalem).

The Holy Spirit is who leads to all truth. Again, we are not condemned for not always having the 'right answers' for there is no condemnation for those who's faith is in Christ. That Spirit of unconditional acceptance should allow you to request in faith for the Spirit to teach you what he needs you to know and what he wants to reveal to you.

We're here for support...which is the attitude of most of the postings I usually post; to support the fulfilled perspective especially due to the abundance of "end times mania" that has existed.

Also, a question for you. Have you heard of the inductive method of study
?http://www.google.com/search?q=Inductive+bible+study&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

[joel]

Much scripture in those responses; and the question remains, What do YOU identify as the "old covenant".??

The answer is that it is contained in the book of Deuteronomy. If you would want to skip a few chapters read chapters 11-32. BUT YOU have to read that section as a whole and inject it into the history of the nation of Israel.


O.K......you couldn't answer the simple question I asked.

Before I read through Deuteronomy, can you state in a few words what this has to do with "the days of Noah".....and the day of the "coming of the Son of Man"?

Joel

[basilfo]

This is the basis for many disagreements..........the old covenant (the first) is in a constant state of decay and turning old, but, it has not been permanently put out of the way.


Hi guys,
It's been a while, but I read through this very good thread and had to put my 2 cents in.

Joel, would you say your words in red above agree with Heb 8:13

8:13 In that He says, "A new [covenant,"] He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

How does "has made the first obsolete" equate to "is in a constant state of decay" as you said? Why would the writer say: "is ready to vanish away" if the vanishing was not to be for over 2000 yrs (centuries longer than that covenant had even been in existance!?)

Why would you tell your readers something was "ready to vanish away" if the time of your writing was not even half way through the time period?

Peace to you all,
Dave

[CWH]

Hi Joel,

You have my support

Genesis 6

1 When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with [a] man forever, for he is mortal [b] ; his days will be a hundred and twenty years."
4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

5 The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. 6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. 7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them." 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.


What happened during the days of Noah that we could compare to the coming of the Son of Man?

Matthew 24:37As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.

People during the time of Noah:
1) Eating and drinking i.e. enjoying life in a godless way
2) Marrying i.e. propagating among the evil decadent generations of their time thus propagating more evil
3) Did not believe the words of God or repent of their evil ways
4) They were all destroyed by a great worldwide Flood unprepared.
5) A total of 8 righteous people including Noah were saved
6) A new generation of people from these 8 righteous people began to populate the world after the Great Flood (Genesis 9:1)
7) A new covenant made in which God will never destroy the earth again with a great Flood. (Genesis 9:11)

Compare to the people at the coming of the Son of Man:
1) Eating and drinking i.e. enjoying life in a godless way
2) Marrying i.e. propagating among the evil decadent generations of their time thus propagating more evil
3) Did not believe the words of God or repent of their evil ways
4) They were all destroyed by a great worldwide Disaster (by Fire) unprepared.
5) The elect will be saved (The Rapture)
6) A new generation of people from the elect and those resurrected begin to populate the world after the Great Disaster of the end of the world during the 1,000 years reign. After the 1,000 years reign, they will be tested again (Revelation 20).
7) A new world order i.e. a new heaven and a new earth commence after the 1,000 year reign ended in which God will live among us (Revelation 21). God will never destroy the earth again.

God Bless and Amen.

[Rose]

Originally Posted by joel http://biblewheel.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=14764#post14764)
This is the basis for many disagreements..........the old covenant (the first) is in a constant state of decay and turning old, but, it has not been permanently put out of the way.Hi guys,
It's been a while, but I read through this very good thread and had to put my 2 cents in.

Joel, would you say your words in red above agree with Heb 8:13

8:13 In that He says, "A new [covenant,"] He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

How does "has made the first obsolete" equate to "is in a constant state of decay" as you said? Why would the writer say: "is ready to vanish away" if the vanishing was not to be for over 2000 yrs (centuries longer than that covenant had even been in existance!?)

Why would you tell your readers something was "ready to vanish away" if the time of your writing was not even half way through the time period?

Peace to you all,
Dave

That is an excellent point Dave. :thumb:

When something is decaying it means it has died. That is what happened to the Law when Christ brought in the New....it died, and began to decay and vanish away.

Rose

[basilfo]

This is the basis for many disagreements..........the old covenant (the first) is in a constant state of decay and turning old, but, it has not been permanently put out of the way.


Don't mean to pick on this quote of yours Joel, but......here's one of the reasons why I believe Scripture teaches that the OC is no longer in effect for anyone:

Jer 31:31 " Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah -- 32 "not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. 33 "But this [is] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 "No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."

The writer of Hebrews quotes this passage (8:7-12) and connects it to the new covenant in Christ's blood. This same covenant:

Matthew 26:28 "For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

And Paul says the 2 covenants don't co-exist or run parallel:

Gal 4:22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he [who was] of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar -- 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children -- 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. 27 For it is written: "Rejoice, O barren, [You] who do not bear! Break forth and shout, You who are not in labor! For the desolate has many more children Than she who has a husband." 28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac [was,] are children of promise. 29 But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him [who was born] according to the Spirit, even so [it is] now. 30 Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? "Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman." 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free.

Do you believe "cast out the bondwoman and her son" means for that covenant to continue on along side the "freewoman" for thousands of years? If so, that's pretty bad symbolism by Paul. I say it lasted for about 40 and the bondwoman and her son was cast out.

In any case, what in the world would be the purpose of any covenant with any people after the NC was established FOR ALL who would believe? Christ made it so simple FOR ALL.

One of the main messages continuously taught by Christ and all the apostles was faith, not heritage. Over and over. Yet we are still grouping people by alledged ethnicity and thinking God has one covenant with Joe Jones and another with Bernie Goldstein.

Peace to you,
Dave

[TheForgiven]

Hey there! Brother Dave!!!! :welcome:

Nice to read from you again. Man what hole have you been hiding in? :D

Decided to come out and play with us again?

I liked your post quoting Jeremiah. I agree 100% percent that Paul shows that the two covenants do not exist side-by-side.

Don't be such a stranger. I was going to email you, but I lost your email address.

Stay in touch bro.

Joe

[Rose]

Hi Joel,

You have my support

Genesis 6

1 When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with [a] man forever, for he is mortal [b] ; his days will be a hundred and twenty years."
4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

5 The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. 6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. 7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them." 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.


What happened during the days of Noah that we could compare to the coming of the Son of Man?

Matthew 24:37As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.

People during the time of Noah:
1) Eating and drinking i.e. enjoying life in a godless way
2) Marrying i.e. propagating among the evil decadent generations of their time thus propagating more evil
3) Did not believe the words of God or repent of their evil ways
4) They were all destroyed by a great worldwide Flood unprepared.
5) A total of 8 righteous people including Noah were saved
6) A new generation of people from these 8 righteous people began to populate the world after the Great Flood (Genesis 9:1)
7) A new covenant made in which God will never destroy the earth again with a great Flood. (Genesis 9:11)

Compare to the people at the coming of the Son of Man:
1) Eating and drinking i.e. enjoying life in a godless way
2) Marrying i.e. propagating among the evil decadent generations of their time thus propagating more evil
3) Did not believe the words of God or repent of their evil ways
4) They were all destroyed by a great worldwide Disaster (by Fire) unprepared.
5) The elect will be saved (The Rapture)
6) A new generation of people from the elect and those resurrected begin to populate the world after the Great Disaster of the end of the world during the 1,000 years reign. After the 1,000 years reign, they will be tested again (Revelation 20).
7) A new world order i.e. a new heaven and a new earth commence after the 1,000 year reign ended in which God will live among us (Revelation 21). God will never destroy the earth again.

God Bless and Amen.

Hi Cheow,

I'm going to add my interpretation to your points in RED.


Compare to the people at the coming of the Son of Man:
1) Eating and drinking i.e. enjoying life in a godless way
2) Marrying i.e. propagating among the evil decadent generations of their time thus propagating more evil
3) Did not believe the words of God or repent of their evil ways
4) They were all destroyed by a great worldwide Disaster (by Fire) unprepared.
4) All those who refused to repent and receive their Messiah were killed by the sword or carried away captive when the Romans overtook Jerusalem like a flood, and destroyed the city.

5) The elect will be saved (The Rapture)
5) All the elect who believe in Christ will be saved no matter when, or where they are.

6) A new generation of people from the elect and those resurrected begin to populate the world after the Great Disaster of the end of the world during the 1,000 years reign. After the 1,000 years reign, they will be tested again (Revelation 20).
6) The new generation that came from the elect are Christians who now have populated the world.

7) A new world order i.e. a new heaven and a new earth commence after the 1,000 year reign ended in which God will live among us (Revelation 21). God will never destroy the earth again.
7) The new heaven and new earth are what we are living in now....the Old Covenant and its Law was the old heaven and earth, which completely vanished away fleeing from before the face of God. Our sign of that happening was the obliteration of the Temple. The New Jerusalem is now the living temples of God.


Many blessings,

Rose

[joel]

If so, that's pretty bad symbolism by Paul. I say it lasted for about 40 and the bondwoman and her son was cast out.


Well then....that settles it. Dave said so.

You opposers have not yet given a scripture that says........the old is forever gone.....forever abrogated.....as you assert.

Give me a scripture.....not your theories.....or your lofty surmisings.

You teach something that cannot be traced to specific scripture.

Joel

[TheForgiven]

Well then....that settles it. Dave said so.

You opposers have not yet given a scripture that says........the old is forever gone.....forever abrogated.....as you assert.

Give me a scripture.....not your theories.....or your lofty surmisings.

You teach something that cannot be traced to specific scripture.

Joel

Hey there bro.....be calm my beloved brother in Christ Jesus. This is not like you Joel. Usually you are the peace maker. So here's some loving assurance for you, from one brother to the next.

:hug:

God bless you brother Joel.

[joel]

Thank you, Joe.

And I would be honored to come and be by your side during your upcoming procedure.........I cannot be there physically, but, I will be there with you in spirit.

You have admonished me.....and,....I receive it as you have given....in love and kindness.

Joel

[basilfo]

Well then....that settles it. Dave said so.

Hi Joel,
When I wrote: "I say....", I didn't mean that as in: "Thus saith Dave...". I meant "It is my opinion that the text says...." which is what we all are doing in these posts.


Joel said: You opposers have not yet given a scripture that says........the old is forever gone.....forever abrogated.....as you assert.

Give me a scripture.....not your theories.....or your lofty surmisings.

Joel

I thought I did Joel:
8:13 In that He says, "A new [covenant,"] He has made the first obsolete.

What do you think "has made the first obsolete" means? If you could answer why you don't see that as Scripture teaching the OC has passed, I would appreciate it. Then, perhaps you could explain what purpose any other covenant would have along side Christ's perfect new covenant?

Peace to you,
Dave

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

O.K......you couldn't answer the simple question I asked.

Before I read through Deuteronomy, can you state in a few words what this has to do with "the days of Noah".....and the day of the "coming of the Son of Man"?

Joel
Question 1.
What was the simple question? As mentioned, there were many verses given about the abolition of the old covenant.

Question 2.
In Deut 32, Jeshurun (a name for end time old covenant national Israel) had become corrupt following their own self will, and sacrificing to Gods that were not Gods due again to adultery with other pseudo religions, and also due to the fact that after the cross, any sacrifice of animals for atonement was Idolatry. (Isaiah 66). Deut 32 I believe refers to the end generation of the old covenant and the vengeance upon them by the Sword of the Lord through the Roman armies and generals.

Jeshurun/judea/Jerusalem was said to be like Sodom/Gomorrah in Deut 32 which in 2 Peter 2:5, 6 is associated with the being like the days of Noah. Thus the days of Noah mentioned in Matt 24 are identified with Sodom/gomorah in Deut 32.

The idea is that the righteous by faith (Noah, Abraham, Lot, the spiritual "seed" of jacob/Israel; the remnant of believing judeans; are preserved while the wicked and the religious oppressors are taken away.

But again, you need to specifically identify to yourself and explain to me (us) what you feel is being described as the "old or former covenant" before we can go any further. Otherwise it is futile to discuss weather or not the 'old covenent' has been abolished... would it not?

And again, that is found in the pages of Deut and especially 11-32.

Thanks.

[basilfo]

IMHO, the need to continue the OC as well as maintaining a unique status in God's eyes for some unbelievers (ethnic 'Jews'), but not others (Gentiles) comes from the fact that escatological passages obviously very much involve the nation of Israel, Jews, the temple of God, the transition from the OC to the NC, etc.

That's where the notion of a "reborn" Israel, a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem, and the "return of Jews to their land" comes from. Without those, there is no way the eschatological texts make any sense today.

[joel]

In εν G1722 en 55
that he saith, λεγω G3004 lego 838
A new καινος G2537 kainos 351
[covenant], he hath made παλαιοω G3822 palaioo 992
the first πρωτος G4413 protos 1550
old. παλαιοω G3822 palaioo 992
Now δε G1161 de 9
that which decayeth παλαιοω G3822 palaioo 992
and και G2532 kai 31
waxeth old γηρασκω G1095 gerasko 1132
[is] ready εγγυς G1451 eggus 611
to vanish away. αφανισμος G0854 aphanismos 1072
-----------------------------------------------------

In that he saith, a new (covenant)
he hath made the first old [palaioo protos palaioo)

The first covenant is rendered "old".......not abolished, nor abrogated, but "old"
-----------------------------------------------------

Now that which decayeth (palaioo).........the "old" covenant is in a state of decaying.

(is) ready to vanish away (aphanismos).......i.e. disappearing from view.

The first covenant (which is "old", and is "decaying") is disappearing from view.

It does not say that it has been abolished, nor abrogated........it is "old", "decaying" and vanishing from view.
------------------------------------------------------

If you say that it is disannuled, or "obsolete" you are not accurately describing its state. It still operates but in a negative manner......a ministry of condemnation.....which has glory......but its glory is far surpassed by the "new".

When the "old" operates on the heart of a Jew the veil upon their hearts remains. When the Jew turns to the Lord, the veil taken away (I Cor 13).

The "old" has a current operation that continues as long as Moses is read.

Joel

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

Have you read Deuteronomy yet? What about Jeremiah 31 from about vs 21 on down?



(is) ready to vanish away (aphanismos).......i.e. disappearing from view.

The first covenant (which is "old", and is "decaying") is disappearing from view.
It does not say that it has been abolished, nor abrogated........it is "old", "decaying" and vanishing from view.

Again, I think your missing the Hermeneutic and Inductive study principles of considering who wrote the letter, to whom it was written and the historical context of the original audience in their time period.

The same concept is important in reading Heb 10:37
For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry.
What did this mean to the original readers in 60 AD? Who was to come 'in a little while"?
This is referring to Titus and the roman armies which were commanded from above by Christ; the deliverer who came to zion (rom 11:27);
and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary

Was it 'ready' eggos; imminent ready to vanish away in 60 AD or only now in 2000 AD?
What about 1000 AD? Was it immenent and ready to pass away then?
What about 5000 AD? Will it be immenent and ready to pass away then?

Or since the canon only includes books/chapters from before the desolation; would this fulfillment not be included in the Bible?

------------------------------------------------------


If you say that it is disannuled, or "obsolete" you are not accurately describing its state. It still operates but in a negative manner......a ministry of condemnation.....which has glory......but its glory is far surpassed by the "new".

And in chapter 7:
14For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
15And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
16Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.
17For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
18For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.
19For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

Hebrews says in chapter 10 speaking of the two covenants:

Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.


When the "old" operates on the heart of a Jew the veil upon their hearts remains. When the Jew turns to the Lord, the veil taken away (I Cor 13).

The "old" has a current operation that continues as long as Moses is read.Joel


There is an aspect in which this is true, but it is not only to the jew. The law represented the conditional way to attempt to please God or recieve/maintain blessings through works/behavior/obedience etc. The 8 of the 10 commandments are stated in the negative, but the commandments in Christ are liberty and yes. Thou shalt not steal, is turned into Give to those in need; share with brother/sister; love your neighbor as yourself etc; The 7th day sabbath is turned in the 8th day new creation of perpetual 'rest' from seeking to attain salvation by works, compelled behavior or ritualistic religion.

Thus when a jew or anyone else recieves justification by faith in Christ through the call of the Holy Spirit; the veil of seeking to please, be blessed, obtain forgiveness or be justified by God against the law of sin/death through any works or conditional manner is taken away. Moses, Zorastricism; Bahia; Pentecostalism; talmudism, whatever....

The law was a testimony for the negative way. Today the light, salt and testimony on the earth is supposed to be those indwelt with the freedom and testimony of Christ; the Word of Christ including the testimony of both covenants and the creation itself testifies to a Creator and a Good God.

But the New Covenant didn't supplant the old because some of the people couldn't' live up to the old; (this is what dispy's would feel and teach as a failing dispensation) The New Covenant of Christ's blood to all peoples was the goal all along and prophecied from Eden, to Noah, Abraham etc. The old contract with it's rituals, sacrifices, calendar was the pattern used to confirm the establishment of the then future enactment of the new covenant.

Nimrod had previously claimed to be virgin born and attempted a counterfeit religion based on human will and satanic counterfeit.

Part of the glory of the land/nation compelled conditional contract was that it contained types, patterns, shadows antitypes, (the 'wrong way') and prophecies that would confirm unquestionably the truthfulness and the reality of the Covenant of everlasting life and justification by faith and blessing by adoption.

I know the above may sound wordy, but you've apparently still not read Deuteronomy to find out what the former covenant was.

Moses being read was not only the 10 commandments or 'the law'. It was the full contract by which the people who wandered through the wilderness were to maintain blessing in the land as a nation. That is what is contained in Deuteronomy; That is what is disannulled; abolished; obsolete etc that your not either willing to see or taken the time to read yet. Because of this, national 'israel' of the old covenant has no preference or contract of existence with God, nor will in the future. Their existence (as a nation) was based on the old covenant which began being formed in Egypt and the 10th plague; i.e. the passover lamb's blood over the doorway. It was enacted and contracted by the people who crossed the Jordan river 40 yrs later.

you say:


The "old" has a current operation that continues as long as Moses is read.

But you failed to state what the "old" is that when the "new" when enacted cause the former to become the 'old'.

So again, what in your mind is the 'old covenant"???

WE can't pass go till we can agree on terms.

[Rose]

In εν G1722 en 55
that he saith, λεγω G3004 lego 838
A new καινος G2537 kainos 351
[covenant], he hath made παλαιοω G3822 palaioo 992
the first πρωτος G4413 protos 1550
old. παλαιοω G3822 palaioo 992
Now δε G1161 de 9
that which decayeth παλαιοω G3822 palaioo 992
and και G2532 kai 31
waxeth old γηρασκω G1095 gerasko 1132
[is] ready εγγυς G1451 eggus 611
to vanish away. αφανισμος G0854 aphanismos 1072
-----------------------------------------------------

In that he saith, a new (covenant)
he hath made the first old [palaioo protos palaioo)

The first covenant is rendered "old".......not abolished, nor abrogated, but "old"
-----------------------------------------------------

Now that which decayeth (palaioo).........the "old" covenant is in a state of decaying.

(is) ready to vanish away (aphanismos).......i.e. disappearing from view.

The first covenant (which is "old", and is "decaying") is disappearing from view.

It does not say that it has been abolished, nor abrogated........it is "old", "decaying" and vanishing from view.
------------------------------------------------------

If you say that it is disannuled, or "obsolete" you are not accurately describing its state. It still operates but in a negative manner......a ministry of condemnation.....which has glory......but its glory is far surpassed by the "new".

When the "old" operates on the heart of a Jew the veil upon their hearts remains. When the Jew turns to the Lord, the veil taken away (I Cor 13).

The "old" has a current operation that continues as long as Moses is read.

Joel

Hi Joel, :icon_hello:

That which is old can still exist, but if it is in a state of decaying, it has no life in it....that which is dead decays. Even though the Jews still cling to the Law does not make it valid, it has been rendered impotent. The Law has been condemned and sentenced to death, and whether or not the complete vanishing away has occurred (I believe it has with the destruction of the Temple), it still has no more value then any other false belief people hang on to.

God Bless

Rose

[joel]

Hi Joel, :icon_hello:

That which is old can still exist, but if it is in a state of decaying, it has no life in it....that which is dead decays. Even though the Jews still cling to the Law does not make it valid, it has been rendered impotent. The Law has been condemned and sentenced to death, and whether or not the complete vanishing away has occurred (I believe it has with the destruction of the Temple), it still has no more value then any other false belief people hang on to.

God Bless

Rose

"The law has been condemned and sentenced to death......" Where would I find that so that I can believe along with you?

According to Paul, the law has been established (Romans 3:31).

Joel

[Rose]

"The law has been condemned and sentenced to death......" Where would I find that so that I can believe along with you?

According to Paul, the law has been established (Romans 3:31).

Joel

Oh course Joel, that was just my own paraphrase of:
Heb. 8:13 "In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old.Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish"
If an old law has been replaced by a new law, then the old is no longer valid, so even if the old law remains on "the books" it no longer has any weight of enforcement because it has been replaced.
Rom. 3:29-31 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid yea, we establish the law.

What I interpret Rom. 3 to be saying is that the law has been established through Christ: by faith in Christ for the Jew, and through Christ faith for the Gentile. Gal. 3 gives good insight into what the purpose of the law was.
Gal.3:19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator....23) But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

The Law was added to the Old Covenant because of transgressions, but God used it as a teacher to bring the Jews to Christ. Once Christ came, the Law was made old and began to vanish away, being replaced by the New which is Grace.

Rose

[joel]

The "old" covenant is decaying and waxing away.

Not the "law". Are you using both terms to apply to the same thing?

Joel

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

"The law has been condemned and sentenced to death......" Where would I find that so that I can believe along with you?

According to Paul, the law has been established (Romans 3:31).

Joel
Rom 10:4ff for one.
Ephes 2:14-16,
But as you noted, the law of commandments can stand to draw nonbelievers,
Or it can be upheld as a negative law of the negative covenant (which is how I think Paul may be using it in 3:31) It is upheld as the shadow and counter covenant to the 'new'. By understanding the land/nation/corporal conditional blessing covenant, we can refine the pespectives of the eternal even if that covenant is ended.

Thus Paul approves and supports of God for initiating, developing and carrying out the old covenant for its puposes of serving the new. It was glorious for it's purposes. That is how I can read Romans 3:31

did you read Deut yet?


To all:
Although I've only joined recently, if I eventually duck in and out sporadiacally for awhile it will be for a break. I've been participating in various other forums also and do not at this time want to be feel obligated or committed to a forum community. If this occurs, I didnt' want anyone to feel slighted or offended. I saw several preterist perspectives being posted here, and though I could add some newer views that I've developed lately about Deut 32 which supports the fulfilment of the Olivet as referreing to the end of the nation.
I may continue also for a time... but uncommitedly..
Perhaps I'll back off of asking Joel if he's read Deut :applause:also...:)

[Rose]

The "old" covenant is decaying and waxing away.

Not the "law". Are you using both terms to apply to the same thing?

Joel

Now you've got me confused...:confused:

If Jesus Christ brought in the New Covenant, rendering the Old Covenant invalid, and the Law was added to the Old Covenant because of transgressions....then what purpose is keeping the Law now, if there is no valid Old Covenant?

The Law was an attached part of the Old Covenant. When the Old Covenant is rendered invalid, the Law is rendered invalid with it, because its purpose was attached to the Old.

Rose

[joel]

Gal 3:17 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.
---------------------------------------------------------

The covenant was made with Abraham. The promises of that covenant remain in effect. It has not been abrogated, nor annulled, nor obsolete.

It is waxing old.

430 years after the covenant was made, the law was added.........but it cannot disannul the covenant either.

The promises associated with that covenant remain.

Now, there is a new covenant of which we are to be able ministers. It is of the spirit. But, it will be ratified with the houses of Israel, and Judah.

The old covenant with Abraham and his seed remains a valid, enforceable agreement.

Joel

[Rose]

Gal 3:17 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.
---------------------------------------------------------

The covenant was made with Abraham. The promises of that covenant remain in effect. It has not been abrogated, nor annulled, nor obsolete.

It is waxing old.

430 years after the covenant was made, the law was added.........but it cannot disannul the covenant either.

The promises associated with that covenant remain.

Now, there is a new covenant of which we are to be able ministers. It is of the spirit. But, it will be ratified with the houses of Israel, and Judah.

The old covenant with Abraham and his seed remains a valid, enforceable agreement.

Joel

Yes, the Covenant was made with Abraham, and all the promises of that Covenant were fulfilled in Jesus Christ....the one who brought in the New Covenant by His death. The Old Covenant promises were not annulled, but rather completely fulfilled in Christ.
2Cor. 1:19-20 For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us, even by me and Silvanus and Timotheus, was not yea and nay, but in him was yea. For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.
How can you say: "The old covenant with Abraham and his seed remains a valid, enforceable agreement."? when the death of the Testator, Jesus Christ validated the New Covenant, thus fulfilling all the promises of the Old in Himself. The sign of circumcision, which was a requirement under the Old Covenant is no longer required as a sign faith under the New, but rather the circumcision of the heart.

How can both the Old Covenant, and the New Covenant which fulfilled the Old, be valid and enforceable at the same time?

Rose

P.S. The New Covenant has already been "ratified" with the House of Israel and the House of Judah.....that is who the remnant was in the 1st Century that received Jesus as their Messiah.

[joel]

The first covenant, the "old" which is in the process of passing away, was made with Abraham, and was passed on to his seed.

Jesus was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers. He fulfilled the conditions of that covenant on their behalf. They are awaiting the promises which were granted and guaranteed under the first covenant. (Romans 15:8)

Paul, the apostle of the Gentiles was a minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sacnctied by the Holy Ghost. (Romans 15:16

Paul was charged with the responsibility of making the Gentiles obedient to the faith, (Romans 15:18)..apart from the law......we, the Gentiles, are justified by faith, separate from the works of the law.

The works under the law were "dead works" in that the conscience could not be purged by the blood of bulls or goats.....but....under the new covenant which is mediated by Christ....His blood and His death obtain redemption of the transgressions which were under the first testament.....so that they which are called might receive the promise of eternal (aionios) inheritance. (Hebrews 99-28).

The law could not, with those sacrifices, ....make the comers thereunto perfect......but, in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again of sins every year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. So, Jesus came into the world, to offer up Himself.....and to mediate a better covenant, with better promises. (Hebrews 10:1-5.

The covenant which He will make with the house of Israel....with them.....is that He will put His law into the hearts, and write them in the minds.....He has provided a new and living way.....which first,.....we, those who are called today, are made partakers,.....and them.....when He comes to ratify the covenant with them.

Joel

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

Gal 3:17 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.
---------------------------------------------------------

The covenant was made with Abraham. The promises of that covenant remain in effect. It has not been abrogated, nor annulled, nor obsolete.

It is waxing old.

430 years after the covenant was made, the law was added.........but it cannot disannul the covenant either.

The promises associated with that covenant remain.

Now, there is a new covenant of which we are to be able ministers. It is of the spirit. But, it will be ratified with the houses of Israel, and Judah.

The old covenant with Abraham and his seed remains a valid, enforceable agreement.

Joel

In your quote from Galatians, the Abrahamic promise of a seed to bless all nations, that was fulfilled in Christ, and the covenant are the same thing; but this is not the "OLD" Covenant lawthat Jeremiah contrasts the New covenant against. Read below where the Old covenant started.

The old covenant law was that they were to do All that Moses had commanded them and the Levites. Fail and they would suffer the curses of the law, suceed and they would remain blessed in the land perpetually. This is sometimes referred to as the commandment. As rose mentioned, the 10 commandments in negative aspect were contained in the law as part of the covenant.

But the promise and covenant given to Abraham was not the 'old covenant' that is referred to in Hebrews or in Jeremiah. The Abrahamic covenant (promise) of a seed through which all nations would be blessed was a positive forerunner of the New Covenant established by the blood of Christ. It is as Rose says, fulfilled in Christ, but it is not the 'old' covenant. The 'old' covenant is the land/nation covenant contracted with the people brought out of Egypt and is the negative forerunner (or counter covenant) of the everlasting covenant of Mercy, called the 'new covenant; thus making the CONDITIONAL land/nation covenant "old".

Read when the 'old covenant' begin according to both Jeremiah and Daniel?
Jeremiah 31

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that 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 [that] I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Here Jeremiah was told that the covenant was already broken by his time. And the removal of the Ark of the covenant supports the idea that it was unobtainable after that time.


Dan 9;
11Yea, all Israel have transgressed thy law, even by departing, that they might not obey thy voice; therefore the curse is poured upon us, and the oath that is written in the law of Moses the servant of God, because we have sinned against him.

12And he hath confirmed his words, which he spake against us, and against our judges that judged us, by bringing upon us a great evil: for under the whole heaven hath not been done as hath been done upon Jerusalem.

13As it is written in the law of Moses, all this evil is come upon us: yet made we not our prayer before the LORD our God, that we might turn from our iniquities, and understand thy truth.

14Therefore hath the LORD watched upon the evil, and brought it upon us: for the LORD our God is righteous in all his works which he doeth: for we obeyed not his voice.

15And now, O Lord our God, that hast brought thy people forth out of the land of Egypt with a mighty hand, and hast gotten thee renown, as at this day; we have sinned, we have done wickedly.

But you would have to read the covenent and contract to find out what it was. Deut 11-32.

I also feel that you are confusing some prophecies, and the generational promises that were given to Abraham about his descendants and their coming back to the land after 400 yrs with the giving of the the land/nation (old) covenant itself that was actually given to those people on the east side of the Jordan by Moses. Also, these prophesies and generational covenant were not the same as the Abrahamic covenant to all nations, but the means through which the Abrahamic covenant would be fulfilled (Christ also came physically in Abrahams Generations)

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

The first covenant, the "old" which is in the process of passing away, was made with Abraham, and was passed on to his seed.

Jesus was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers. He fulfilled the conditions of that covenant on their behalf. They are awaiting the promises which were granted and guaranteed under the first covenant. (Romans 15:8)

Paul, the apostle of the Gentiles was a minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sacnctied by the Holy Ghost. (Romans 15:16

Paul was charged with the responsibility of making the Gentiles obedient to the faith, (Romans 15:18)..apart from the law......we, the Gentiles, are justified by faith, separate from the works of the law.

The works under the law were "dead works" in that the conscience could not be purged by the blood of bulls or goats.....but....under the new covenant which is mediated by Christ....His blood and His death obtain redemption of the transgressions which were under the first testament.....so that they which are called might receive the promise of eternal (aionios) inheritance. (Hebrews 99-28).

The law could not, with those sacrifices, ....make the comers thereunto perfect......but, in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again of sins every year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. So, Jesus came into the world, to offer up Himself.....and to mediate a better covenant, with better promises. (Hebrews 10:1-5.

The covenant which He will make with the house of Israel....with them.....is that He will put His law into the hearts, and write them in the minds.....He has provided a new and living way.....which first,.....we, those who are called today, are made partakers,.....and them.....when He comes to ratify the covenant with them.

Joel
I'm sorry, ... I tried.
Your glorifying the law and the nation of old covenant Israel, not the freedom and love granted in the fulfillment of the covenant of Grace and Mercy in he finished work of Christ to all peoples,nations,tongues. You've got it backwards.

I have to go; maybe catch up to you all later.

[Rose]

The first covenant, the "old" which is in the process of passing away, was made with Abraham, and was passed on to his seed.

Jesus was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers. He fulfilled the conditions of that covenant on their behalf. They are awaiting the promises which were granted and guaranteed under the first covenant. (Romans 15:8)

Paul, the apostle of the Gentiles was a minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sacnctied by the Holy Ghost. (Romans 15:16

Paul was charged with the responsibility of making the Gentiles obedient to the faith, (Romans 15:18)..apart from the law......we, the Gentiles, are justified by faith, separate from the works of the law.

The works under the law were "dead works" in that the conscience could not be purged by the blood of bulls or goats.....but....under the new covenant which is mediated by Christ....His blood and His death obtain redemption of the transgressions which were under the first testament.....so that they which are called might receive the promise of eternal (aionios) inheritance. (Hebrews 99-28).

The law could not, with those sacrifices, ....make the comers thereunto perfect......but, in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again of sins every year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. So, Jesus came into the world, to offer up Himself.....and to mediate a better covenant, with better promises. (Hebrews 10:1-5.

The covenant which He will make with the house of Israel....with them.....is that He will put His law into the hearts, and write them in the minds.....He has provided a new and living way.....which first,.....we, those who are called today, are made partakers,.....and them.....when He comes to ratify the covenant with them.

Joel

You said: "The covenant which He will make with the house of Israel......when He comes to ratify the covenant with them." speaking in the future tense, as if the New Covenant hasn't been made with the House of Israel yet.....how can that be? Are you saying that Paul, Peter, James, John and all of the others that accepted Jesus as their Messiah and became the foundation of the Church, have not had the New Covenant ratified with them.

The Apostles, and all the 1st century Jewish believers were "the remnant", they were of the House of Israel, and they were the natural Olive Tree into which the Gentiles were grafted!

Rose

[joel]

This is where we differ in our beliefs (and there may be much more, I'm not sure)........Yes.....the first century Jews who were in Jerusalem, and who believed,.....including Peter, and those others who were Jews......were still of the circumcision. To the extent, that they, along with others of the Jews who were included.........looked at the new movement from Jewish eyes....as if the Jews still were in a position of pre-eminence.

But, when Paul came forth......not numbered with the original group....as if born out of time......he was sent to the Gentiles, and not to the Jews, who were evangelized by Peter and his associates.

There occurs, within the Acts of the Apostles, a demarcation. The Jewish believers expected the Gentiles to become Jewish. But, Paul resisted. He said that they (the Gentiles) were not to become circumcised.

The question which arises is what is the distinction between the two groups, if any. How do we handle this?

The on-going problem which I have with the preterist position is that......you contend that the Jew is done away with....the law is done away with....the temple is done away with....the first covenant is done away with.....and that all the promises of God are fulfilled in the body of believers which are the body of Chrst.

I cannot find that reasoning anywhere in scripture.

It appears that.......the Jewish believers may still have a unique Jewish fulfillment awaiting them....while we, of the nations, have yet another calling.

There are two realms in which God is reclaiming His glory; the earth....and the heavens.

It is my belief that the process which awaits us involves the Jewish people on earth....and the body of Christ in the heavens.

Joel

[basilfo]

There occurs, within the Acts of the Apostles, a demarcation. The Jewish believers expected the Gentiles to become Jewish. But, Paul resisted. He said that they (the Gentiles) were not to become circumcised.

Hi Joel,
You make this sound like this was Paul's position - not shared with the church in Jerusalem. But when Paul brought the issue to the council in Jerusalem, the decision by Peter and the church leaders was clear that Gentile believers did not have to "become Jewish" - no circumcision required. There was no distinction or demarcation taught:

Acts 15:22 Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, [namely,] Judas who was also named Barsabas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren. 23 They wrote this [letter] by them: The apostles, the elders, and the brethren, To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia: Greetings. 24 Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, "[You must] be circumcised and keep the law" -- to whom we gave no [such] commandment -- 25 it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth. 28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.


The question which arises is what is the distinction between the two groups, if any. How do we handle this?

No distinction. Do you know of any Scripture which teaches different rules for Gentile believers vs. Jewish believers? Please pass that along.

Peace to you,
Dave

[basilfo]

The on-going problem which I have with the preterist position is that......you contend that the Jew is done away with....the law is done away with....the temple is done away with....the first covenant is done away with.....and that all the promises of God are fulfilled in the body of believers which are the body of Chrst.

I cannot find that reasoning anywhere in scripture.

Joel, the Scripture was provided but you don't want to take the words as they appear on the page: "He has made the first obsolete."

Heb 10:9 then He said, "Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God." He takes away the first that He may establish the second.

When you say the first has not been "taken away" or made "obsolete", you must conclude that He has not established the second. How do you explain that Joel?

If the first covenant is still an active covenant, sanctioned by God, running along side the second or new covenant, why does God have very harsh words for anyone who rejects the second?

Heb 10:29 Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know Him who said, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord. And again, "The LORD will judge His people."

Anyone rejecting the second (new) covenant (Jew or Gentile) "tramples the Son of God underfoot" and counts His precious blood "a common thing". How could God continue another covenant with people who reject Christ? It's absurd IMO.

So it is you, Joel, that must provide Scripture to support your double covenant theory, which is the heart of the false teaching of dispensationalism.



It appears that.......the Jewish believers may still have a unique Jewish fulfillment awaiting them....while we, of the nations, have yet another calling.

There are two realms in which God is reclaiming His glory; the earth....and the heavens.

It is my belief that the process which awaits us involves the Jewish people on earth....and the body of Christ in the heavens.

Joel


Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, "And to seeds," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ.

Faith in Christ, not heritage. You make this verse say the promises go to ethnic Jews or "seeds". Paul clearly corrects this 1st century false teaching by explaining that the promises go to Christ and his believers, the church - no matter their ethnicity.

[Rose]

This is where we differ in our beliefs (and there may be much more, I'm not sure)........Yes.....the first century Jews who were in Jerusalem, and who believed,.....including Peter, and those others who were Jews......were still of the circumcision. To the extent, that they, along with others of the Jews who were included.........looked at the new movement from Jewish eyes....as if the Jews still were in a position of pre-eminence.

But, when Paul came forth......not numbered with the original group....as if born out of time......he was sent to the Gentiles, and not to the Jews, who were evangelized by Peter and his associates.

There occurs, within the Acts of the Apostles, a demarcation. The Jewish believers expected the Gentiles to become Jewish. But, Paul resisted. He said that they (the Gentiles) were not to become circumcised.

The question which arises is what is the distinction between the two groups, if any. How do we handle this?

The on-going problem which I have with the preterist position is that......you contend that the Jew is done away with....the law is done away with....the temple is done away with....the first covenant is done away with.....and that all the promises of God are fulfilled in the body of believers which are the body of Chrst.

I cannot find that reasoning anywhere in scripture.

It appears that.......the Jewish believers may still have a unique Jewish fulfillment awaiting them....while we, of the nations, have yet another calling.

There are two realms in which God is reclaiming His glory; the earth....and the heavens.

It is my belief that the process which awaits us involves the Jewish people on earth....and the body of Christ in the heavens.

Joel

You say that you cannot find reasoning anywhere in Scripture for the Preterist points you listed,.....but where in Scripture do you find anything about the "two realms" you mentioned, and that Jewish believers have a unique calling on earth?

Rose

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

Yes, the Covenant was made with Abraham, and all the promises of that Covenant were fulfilled in Jesus Christ....the one who brought in the New Covenant by His death. The Old Covenant promises were not annulled, but rather completely fulfilled in Christ.
2Cor. 1:19-20 For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us, even by me and Silvanus and Timotheus, was not yea and nay, but in him was yea. For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.
How can you say: "The old covenant with Abraham and his seed remains a valid, enforceable agreement."? when the death of the Testator, Jesus Christ validated the New Covenant, thus fulfilling all the promises of the Old in Himself. The sign of circumcision, which was a requirement under the Old Covenant is no longer required as a sign faith under the New, but rather the circumcision of the heart.

How can both the Old Covenant, and the New Covenant which fulfilled the Old, be valid and enforceable at the same time?

Rose

P.S. The New Covenant has already been "ratified" with the House of Israel and the House of Judah.....that is who the remnant was in the 1st Century that received Jesus as their Messiah.

Hi Rose, I think you might be also naming the Abrahamic covenant as the "old covenant"

There is a difference between the Abrahamic Covenant which indeed was fulfilled by Christ (in whom believing individuals of all nations are blessed by faith) and the "OLD Covenant against which the "New" Covenant is Contrasted

Where does Jeremiah say the covenent which Hebrews 8 calls the "Old" covenant got its start?

This is VERY important I believe because the old covenant was disanulled, was 'inferior', faulty etc. It is also called 'the law' and 'the commandment' while the Abrahamic covenent is referred to as 'the promise' and is fulfilled in Christ in whose atonement and work we place our faith.

So perhaps you or others could take the time to answer as to when (what Hebrews calls) the old covenant began. This answer has effects on several other items and understandings related to fulfilled perspective.

Thanks.

[TheForgiven]

Brother Joel wrote:

The on-going problem which I have with the preterist position is that......you contend that the Jew is done away with....the law is done away with....the temple is done away with....the first covenant is done away with.....and that all the promises of God are fulfilled in the body of believers which are the body of Chrst.

Hmmmm? :nono:

The "Jew" has not been done away with. Brother Joel, I think you're making this harder than what it needs to be. Scripture clearly contrasts between a Jew, and a false Jew. Anyone who is not in Christ is not a Jew...this means ANYONE. In the same way, anyone who is not in Christ is NOT Israel. Paul himself states, "For they are NOT ALL ISRAEL who are [biologically born] of Israel...."

How difficult does that need to be? Paul shows that only through "THY SEED" are children born from Abraham. That is, those who are born from "THY SEED" become children from Abraham, and sons to God. The "SEED" is Jesus, through which can be traced from the lineage of Abraham.

Ancient Israel had true Jews, and false Jews. Obviously, anyone considered disobedient even to the Laws of Moses, were considered as outcasts, and thus, false Jews. In the first century, the false Jews were condemned unto judgment because of their hardened heart and disbelief.

I've discussed this many times before, and once again, I'll discuss it.

Isaiah showed that the hardened condition of Israel would only last as long (upon them) until the cities were without inhabitant, and the land became a total desolation. Thus, during the ministry of Christ and His Disciples, those who were being marked for destruction remained in their hardened condition because of their disobedience. This "hardened condition" came to a halt in 70AD, when the entire city was destroyed, the land of Israel became a desolation, and the Kingdom of God (Church) proved victorious over both Harlot (False Jews) and Beast (Rome). Since that time, there is no divine hardening. Hence, there is no awaiting covenant to be enacted, for no other covenant is to come seeing the perfect Covenant was enacted by the blood of Jesus.

Let me ask you something. The Jews had to maintain their Tribe during the first covenant because the promise of the Messiah had not yet come. When Jesus was born, and fulfilled His purpose, the requirement to maintain the proper Jewish lineage had been fulfilled/completed. Thus, what further need would there be to maintain a lineage? There hasn't been a Jewish Tribe for more than 2000 years. Isn't this an obvious hint to you? If the Tribes were still valid and important today, don't you think they would exist now? Yet not a single person who resides in national Israel is able to prove what Tribe he/she comes from.

This being the case, how does one become a Jew today? That's simple...through Christ Jesus. He is the Jew of all Jews, and all who are born through Him become sons of God through faith, and NOT biological birth. This is why Paul teaches that children of Abraham are those of "Faith" and not "physical birth". Yes there were physical Jews of the first century, but these existed in two categories of physical Jews:

1. True Jews
2. False Jews

True Jews were the "remnant" who preached the gospels. False Jews were those who persecuted the Church and refused to repent. Jesus Himself called many of the false Jews sons of the devil.

Finally, if Christ is the ONLY means of salvation, and this salvation is available to all, why would it matter what blood type or DNA strand we might have? It doesn't matter if one is born in India, Russia, America, England, Iceland, Africa, national Israel, or even Saudi Arabia. If you are outside of Christ, then your biological status is not enough to do anything. If you're within Christ, then your fleshly birth means absolutely nothing. For you give up your biological heritage in place of the true heritage; sons of God through Jesus Christ, thereby becoming a nation of Jews....TRUE Jews.

Why would you insist that God still deals on the basis of biological birth? And how could there ever exist a biological Jew if they were cast into the sea (of Gentiles) 2000 years ago? Furthermore, Revelation states that they were to never be found again.

Oh, and one more thing. The Church is not a Gentile kingdom; it is a Jewish Kingdom. How so? Because the Church is ruled by a Jew and His name is Jesus. Also, Jesus states, "For salvation is of/from the Jews...." Salvation is found only in the Church, thereby making the Church a Jewish Kingdom since this salvation is of the Jews.

For, "You are a royal Priesthood; a holy nation...." as Peter states. Thus, all within the Church are Jews. So God never set aside the Jew...rather, he created one new body so that all, no matter where you are born, can become Jews, who's circumcision is from the heart....not foreskin.

Joe

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

Hi Rose, I think you might be also naming the Abrahamic covenant as the "old covenant"

There is a difference between the Abrahamic Covenant which indeed was fulfilled by Christ (in whom believing individuals of all nations are blessed by faith) and the "OLD Covenant against which the "New" Covenant is Contrasted

Where does Jeremiah 31 say the covenant which Hebrews 8 calls the "Old" covenant got its start?

This is VERY important I believe because the old covenant was said to be disanulled, was 'inferior', faulty etc. It is also called 'the law' and 'the commandment' while the Abrahamic covenent is referred to as 'the promise' and is fulfilled in Christ whose atonement and work we place our faith.

So perhaps you or others could take the time to answer as to when (what Hebrews calls) the old covenant began. This answer has effects on several other items and understandings related to fulfilled perspective.

Thanks.

This is a 'bump'.
I think this is an important issue and important question especially in preterist thought?
Does anyone recognize the similarities of the 40 yrs of the establishment of the old covenant and the 40 yr time period of the establishment of the kingodom of God in power of the New?

[Rose]

This is a 'bump'.
I think this is an important issue and important question especially in preterist thought?
Does anyone recognize the similarities of the 40 yrs of the establishment of the old covenant and the 40 yr time period of the establishment of the kingodom of God in power of the New?

Hi EndtimesDeut32,

Yes, the connections are quite stunning.



40 years after the Exodus....establishment of Old Covenant

1. First Passover….Exodus from Egypt.

2. First Pentecost…..Moses receives the Law on Mt. Sinai, the Word of God written on tablets of stone (3,000 die because of the law).

3. 40 years wandering in the wilderness till the generation that left Egypt died, before Joshua, Caleb and the Children who were born in the wilderness could enter the Promised Land.

4. At the end of the 40 years Joshua led the children born in the wilderness into the Promised Land.


40 years after the Cross....establishment of the New Covenant

1. Passover fulfilled….Christ the Passover Lamb at the cross.

2. Pentecost fulfilled….First Christians sealed with Holy Spirit, the living Word of God is written on hearts of flesh (3,000 receive new life because of Christ fulfilling the law).

3. At the end of the 40 years Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 A.D. millions of Jews lost their lives.

4. 40 years elapsed from the Cross till Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 A.D. During that time many Jews and Gentiles were born again, they are the ones who entered into the Promised Land ushered in by Christ.

Rose

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

Hi EndtimesDeut32,
Yes, the connections are quite stunning.

40 years after the Exodus....establishment of Old Covenant

1. First Passover….Exodus from Egypt.

2. First Pentecost…..Moses receives the Law on Mt. Sinai, the Word of God written on tablets of stone (3,000 die because of the law).

3. 40 years wandering in the wilderness till the generation that left Egypt died, before Joshua, Caleb and the Children who were born in the wilderness could enter the Promised Land.

And I'd add that they circled Jercho 7 times with 'trumpet blasts'... and the walls of the city fell.

4. At the end of the 40 years Joshua led the children born in the wilderness into the Promised Land.


40 years after the Cross....establishment of the New Covenant

1. Passover fulfilled….Christ the Passover Lamb at the cross.

2. Pentecost fulfilled….First Christians sealed with Holy Spirit, the living Word of God is written on hearts of flesh (3,000 receive new life because of Christ fulfilling the law).

3. At the end of the 40 years Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 A.D. millions of Jews lost their lives.

4. 40 years elapsed from the Cross till Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 A.D. During that time many Jews and Gentiles were born again, they are the ones who entered into the Promised Land ushered in by Christ.

Rose
Did you look at my lil attachment? :)

Yes they are coincidental aren't they.?
So according to Jeremiahs prophecy, when did the covenant begin that was "NOT LIKE" the new covnenat.??

Do you recognize that the 'old covenent' did not begin with Abraham?

What was contained in the covenant that was not like the New Covenent?
Where could I go to find it?

In the Galatians passage: What covenent is Paul talking about when he uses the word Covenent? Is this what Hebrews calls being made "OLD" by the initiation of the "NEW"?
What is meant by the Law?
Gal 3:17 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.

[Rose]

Did you look at my lil attachment? :)

Yes they are coincidental aren't they.?
So according to Jeremiahs prophecy, when did the covenant begin that was "NOT LIKE" the new covnenat.??

Do you recognize that the 'old covenent' did not begin with Abraham?

What was contained in the covenant that was not like the New Covenent?
Where could I go to find it?

In the Galatians passage: What covenent is Paul talking about when he uses the word Covenent? Is this what Hebrews calls being made "OLD" by the initiation of the "NEW"?
What is meant by the Law?
Gal 3:17 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.

Hi EndtimesDeut32,

In Galatians Paul tells us that the Law was added to the Covenant, 430 years after the Covenant was confirmed, because of the transgressions of the children of Israel. Paul then goes on to say that the Law was used as a "schoolmaster" ultimately bringing them to Christ.
Gal. 3:17-19 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. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise. Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.....24) Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

I believe the time Paul was speaking of when the Old Covenant was confirmed happened in Gen. 48, when Jacob (Israel) confirms the blessing of the Covenant on Joseph and his son Ephraim. The time period for that event would have been around 430 years before the Exodus.

Rose

P.S. I didn't notice an attachment to your post?

[Rose]

Hi Rose, I think you might be also naming the Abrahamic covenant as the "old covenant"

There is a difference between the Abrahamic Covenant which indeed was fulfilled by Christ (in whom believing individuals of all nations are blessed by faith) and the "OLD Covenant against which the "New" Covenant is Contrasted

Where does Jeremiah say the covenent which Hebrews 8 calls the "Old" covenant got its start?

This is VERY important I believe because the old covenant was disanulled, was 'inferior', faulty etc. It is also called 'the law' and 'the commandment' while the Abrahamic covenent is referred to as 'the promise' and is fulfilled in Christ in whose atonement and work we place our faith.

So perhaps you or others could take the time to answer as to when (what Hebrews calls) the old covenant began. This answer has effects on several other items and understandings related to fulfilled perspective.

Thanks.

Hi EndtimesDeut32,

I guess I missed this post, so I'll answer it now.

I believe there is only one Old Covenant, and it began with Abraham. The Law was added to the Covenant originally made with Abraham, because of the transgressions of the children of Israel.

God Bless,

Rose

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

Hi EndtimesDeut32,

I guess I missed this post, so I'll answer it now.

I believe there is only one Old Covenant, and it began with Abraham. The Law was added to the Covenant originally made with Abraham, because of the transgressions of the children of Israel.

God Bless,

Rose
Hi Rose,

Yes, thanks for the Honest answer. I surmised that you (and some others) have the perspective of the Abrahamic covenant being the "old covenant. This I believe to be in error and ask you and others to consider some thoughts.

I also think that the view that your expressing helps fuel the fire of the dispy and zionist camps, when it need not.

This is long, but to be somewhat thorough, It seems neccessary. Pehaps if all is not neccessary for you it might help others understand the difference among the covenants and especially identify what Hebrews says was made 'old' by calling another covenant "NEW".

For one, In Hebrews it calls the old covenant 'inferior', faulty, so forth and so on.... which would not fit the Abrahamic covenant of blessing through faith to all nations/peoples/tongues in Christ. The Abrahamic covenant is considered the promise fulfilled in Christ and not abolished but rather ratified and in full effect to the 'seed' (those of like spiritual kind) as Abraham. (or Noah, Gen 9:9)

I believe that the Covenant that Abraham was given was the covenant of Mercy (Dan 9:4 for one: 9:24: Luke 1:27 in context with Zacharias' speech) which was also promised from the Garden of a seed to bruise/crush Satan's Heel...etc.

It was then passed through Noah in Gen 6:18 (and in chapter 9)as "my covenant".
Gen 6:18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.

In Gen 9:11 we have a "sign" covenant added to and along with the 'my covenant. I think it shows that it is added by the word 'neither'.

And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth. 13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.
The covenant of mercy was then expanded in it's scope, blessings, characteristics and explanation to Abraham. When the covenant was given to Abraham the promise of blessing and cursing was added to the covenant of Mercy. Abraham was asked to come out from among other people...signifying the individuality of the covenant of mercy through faith... just like Noah's family was singled out. (just one example)

In Abraham's example: he was given the sign of circumcision, AND he was given the promise that through his generations (his physical lineage and descendency) would come the fulfillment of the promise to be blessed by faith and receiving Christ. Paul clarifies the word 'seed' to mean those of a like spiritual kind (which is also defined that way in Jeremiah 31), but there was an additional geneological covenant or prophecy running alongside the covenant of mercy that the promised 'seed' would come through 'his generations'. I think the circumcision was a sign of that prophecy.

Abraham was also given a promise that his descendants would toil in egypt 400yrs and then inheirit the land. But I don't' view this as the covenant for that land through his physical genetic descendancy, but rather a prophecy of something future to happen.

The covenant of Mercy is what is being passed through the Patriarchs. Their experiences lived out the doctrines of the covenant of Mercy against the law of sin/death.
1. By Faith, not flesh or works; Gods work, not Abraham's; Gods timing not his; though the examples of Abrahams life with the concubine and Sarah...
2. God's doctrine of salvation in the example of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob; as referred to by Paul in Romans 9.
3. Jacob blessing Ephraim (the latter) signifying that the elder (the old covenant) would serve the latter covenant (new, everlasting) within the house of Israel.

Now here's what I and the writer of Hebrews consider the 'old covenant' which is abolished. When the prophecy of the New Covenant was given to Jeremiah it was contrasted against a previous covenant. It says "not like the covenant I made with their fathers WHEN I TOOK THEM BY THE HAND AND LED THEM OUT OF EGYPT... Then the writer of Hebrews says that by calling this covenant "NEW" he was calling something else "old", obsolete etc.. This was prophesied during the Babylonian captivity.

The covenant of Mercy is sometimes referred to as the covenant he swore with the fathers Abraham, Isaac, Jacob. But there is an additional covenant(s) promises or prophesies given to the people as they were forming a 'nation".
THE OLD COVENANT

Deut 5:2,3;
The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb.
The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, [even] us, who [are] all of us here alive this day.

This is the covenant begun with the formation of the "NATION" of Israel at the first passover in Egypt. But the covenant is explained to that 'people' (not only a descendancy now) in the pages of Deuteronomy when Moses addresses them on the east side of the Jordan.



Deut 1:3
And it came to pass in the fortieth year, in the eleventh month, on the first [day] of the month, [that] Moses spake unto the children of Israel, according unto all that the LORD had given him in commandment unto them;

Deut 29:1 These [are] the words of the covenant, which the LORD commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, beside the covenant which he made with them in Horeb.
ETC.


This covenant was conditional:

28:1 And it shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe [and] to do all his commandments which I command thee this day, that the LORD thy God will set thee on high above all nations of the earth:

28:15:But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee:

And it referred to remaining blessed in the land:

30:19;20; In that I command thee this day to love the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the LORD thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it. That thou mayest love the LORD thy God, [and] that thou mayest obey his voice, and that thou mayest cleave unto him: for he [is] thy life, and the length of thy days: that thou mayest dwell in the land which the LORD sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them.

Later in the giving of the Covenant, the prophecy of the Babylonian curses and captivity (Deut 28) and the calling back to the land (Deut 30) the receiving of circumcision of the heart 30:5ff; and then the cutting off of those who would not hear the prophet spoken of in Chapter 18 (Acts 3:) as the general population would again sacrifice to other Gods; etc.. Then Duet 32 would describe the end and latter end of the viability of this conditional covenant and the 'nation' as carried out by the Romans.

The prophesied concerning this 'end' are expanded upon and clarified in the prophets and especially Daniel and Isaiah the Olivet discourse. And in Deut 32:43 as you noticed, the end result is the the nations come and rejoice with the remnant who are saved.

SUMMARY OBSERVATIONS;
When Jeremiah is told of the New Covenant, it is actually the individualized covenant of Mercy and the seed to crush the effects of Satans temptations and the law of sin/death promised to all Adams race.
As you read Jeremiah 31, it becomes evident that the New covenant is contrasted directly against the covenant given to Moses to give to the poeple of Israel Deut 29:1; The 'law of 10 commandments of individual behavior was part of the land/nation/conditional covenant. And the people began when he took them by the hand and led them out of Egypt.


27Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man, and with the seed of beast.

28And it shall come to pass, that like as I have watched over them, to pluck up, and to break down, and to throw down, and to destroy, and to afflict; so will I watch over them, to build, and to plant, saith the LORD.

29In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge.

30But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.

Individual aspect of the new covenant; In Ez 14 this is emphasized also

31Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:


But he has already sown the house of Israel/Judah with the seed of men and beast

32Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:

Here again the New covenant is contrasted not against the Abrahamic covenant but against the conditional land/nation covenant of the house of Israel doing all that moses had commanded them to remain blessed in the land. Here also, by Jeremiahs time, that covenant was already considered broken, thus the removal of the ark of the covenant.

33But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Sounds very similar to the circumcision of the heart as described in Deut 30, and the the promise of the teacher of Christ (john 6) and the Holy Spirit (John 14-16)

34And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

35Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name:

36If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.

37Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD.
Since the new covenant is individual (just as Abraham and Noah were individually called) this 'seed' of Israel refers to the 'seed' of the individual named Jacob/Israel who wrestled with the angel as a wayward man and obtained a reformed life and
Deut 32:9-14 For the LORD'S portion [is] his people; Jacob [is] the lot of his inheritance........And his name means basically 'Prince or son of God" Compare John 1:12-13

Deut 32:15ff But Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked: thou art waxen fat, thou art grown thick, thou art covered [with fatness]; then he forsook God [which] made him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation.
This would be referring to end time nation of Israel or "Joshua" of this covenant given by Moses.

Sumarized summmary
In Gal 3 and other places where applicable: such as some places in Romans and in all Hebrews. 2 Cor 3. the commandment, the law, ministry of death, the old covenant, must be distinguished from the promise, the Abrahamic covenant, the promise of the eternal Spirit etc.


6Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

17And this I say, that the covenant, (this is the Abrahamic covenent of Mercy through Christ, the Creator) that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, (I think this is both the 10 commandment law and the land/nation law due to how its described in vers 10 below, but especially the 10 commandment law) which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

18For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

10For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

As one reads Hebrews with the understanding that the 'old covenant' was the one specifically made with the nation of Israel which was formed by bringing them out of the land of Egypt and the giving of the conditional land/nation/corporal blessing covennat, one can begin to see that it's one purpose was both a shadow covenant and a counter covenant who's times and seasons and some characteristics foreshadowed and confirmed the authenticity and the establishment of the 'new covenant' during those times and seasons.
This understanding GREATLY supports that the 'end's mentioned in Daniel, the Olivet and other places are the 'end' of old covenant Jeshurun as described in Deut 32;
Based on the covenent of the rainbow and the promise to the 'seed' of Israel of Jeremiah 31; people can expect to live a 70-80 yr lifespan without fear of being in the 'end-times' and wondering if they meet the religious indocrination to be 'raptured'. But in the same mindset, the date of one's mortality is never set and one must realize that their 'end time' could be any day and thus must wrestle with that mortality just as Israel wrestled for his life and reasoned with God.

You also mentioned about the law being added for transgression.
19Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
Since there was no 'law' before this other than law against murder given to Noah, would this transgression be a transgression against the law of faith that Abraham experienced? Or could it be the transgressions against the living God that the other cities and nations who had been influenced by Nimrod would have been partaking in.
Just food for thought.

Summarized summary.
The old covenant is not the Abrahamic covenant. When Jeremiah is given the 'new covennt' to the house of Israel and Judah; it is contrasted with the covenant that he made with the house (people) of Israel/Judah when he took them by the hand and led them out of Egypt...
The 'old' covenant that Moses gave has some characteristics that are opposite of the New covenant of faith; and the old covenant times, seasons, types, temple service etc served to foreshadow and confirm the individual everlasting covenant of Mercy to those who call upon Him and receive Him placing their faith in God.


Wow, sorry that took so long.
God Bless.

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

Hi EndtimesDeut32,

In Galatians Paul tells us that the Law was added to the Covenant, 430 years after the Covenant was confirmed, because of the transgressions of the children of Israel. Paul then goes on to say that the Law was used as a "schoolmaster" ultimately bringing them to Christ.
Gal. 3:17-19 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. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise. Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.....24) Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

I believe the time Paul was speaking of when the Old Covenant was confirmed happened in Gen. 48, when Jacob (Israel) confirms the blessing of the Covenant on Joseph and his son Ephraim. The time period for that event would have been around 430 years before the Exodus.

Rose

P.S. I didn't notice an attachment to your post?

The attachment was serveral posts ago. It was a diagram of the comparison of the 40 yrs of Moses to Joshua compared with Christ to nation of son of man.

I think the covenant of Abraham was confirmed right away when he went to Egypt and Pharoah experienced some plagues. I think it was also confirmed when Sara gave birth in her old age and so forth. Abraham was told that 400 yrs later his descendants would come back to the land. Thus I dont' think the blessing of Ephraim would hold out timewise. Were they in Egypt 400 yrs? If so, I misquoted the 400 yr prophecy that was given to Abraham and it was that they would be in Egypt 400 yrs. (Edit: I just checked and yes, they were in Egypt 430 yrs and afllicted in slavery of some type or another for 400)

Anyhow, as you read below, I dont' think the old covenant is the Covenant to Abraham which was confirmed by God.
The 'old' covenant to the house of Israel and Judah was the covenant given to that house by Moses. It is not the 'oldest' covenant, but it is the one made to the people in order for them to become a 'house' or a 'nation' after being in Egypt.

Thanks for letting me tell this side of the view for others who might benefit also.
It seems that if any group would have title to 'inheirit' the actual land area it would be those of the 'seed' of faith of Abraham. And there has been a Christian presence in the land ever since the desolation, from what I've read....
But this is one reason I consider that there is a spiritual inheritance that is meant to the 'seed' forever.

[Rose]

The attachment was serveral posts ago. It was a diagram of the comparison of the 40 yrs of Moses to Joshua compared with Christ to nation of son of man.

I think the covenant of Abraham was confirmed right away when he went to Egypt and Pharoah experienced some plagues. I think it was also confirmed when Sara gave birth in her old age and so forth. Abraham was told that 400 yrs later his descendants would come back to the land. Thus I dont' think the blessing of Ephraim would hold out timewise. Were they in Egypt 400 yrs? If so, I misquoted the 400 yr prophecy that was given to Abraham and it was that they would be in Egypt 400 yrs. (Edit: I just checked and yes, they were in Egypt 430 yrs and afllicted in slavery of some type or another for 400)

Anyhow, as you read below, I dont' think the old covenant is the Covenant to Abraham which was confirmed by God.
The 'old' covenant to the house of Israel and Judah was the covenant given to that house by Moses. It is not the 'oldest' covenant, but it is the one made to the people in order for them to become a 'house' or a 'nation' after being in Egypt.

Thanks for letting me tell this side of the view for others who might benefit also.
It seems that if any group would have title to 'inherit' the actual land area it would be those of the 'seed' of faith of Abraham. And there has been a Christian presence in the land ever since the desolation, from what I've read....
But this is one reason I consider that there is a spiritual inheritance that is meant to the 'seed' forever.

Hi EndtimesDeut32,

Christ fulfilled all the promises in Himself, and we who are in Christ are the seed of promise.
Gal. 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

In Psalms we find a witness to the fact that the Covenant was confirmed with Jacob (Israel).
Psalm 105:8-10 He hath remembered his covenant for ever, the word whichhe commanded to a thousand generations. Which covenant he made with Abraham, and his oath unto Isaac; And confirmed the same unto Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant:

Paul tells us in Galatians that this Covenant was confirmed 430 years before the Law was given.
Gen.48:20-22 And he blessed them that day, saying, In thee shall Israel bless, saying, God make thee as Ephraim and as Manasseh: and he set Ephraim before Manasseh. And Israel said unto Joseph, Behold, I die: but God shall be with you, and bring you again unto the land of your fathers. Moreover I have given to thee one portion above thy brethren, which I took out of the hand of the Amorite with my sword and with my bow.

In Gen.15 God tells Abraham that his seed would be in bondage 400 years (those were the years in Egypt), different from the confirming of the Covenant. So the time frame of Jacobs (Israel) confirming the Covenant with Joseph, and Ephraim seems to fit nicely.
Gen. 15:13 And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;Rose

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

Hi EndtimesDeut32,

Christ fulfilled all the promises in Himself, and we who are in Christ are the seed of promise.
Gal. 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

In Psalms we find a witness to the fact that the Covenant was confirmed with Jacob (Israel).
Psalm 105:8-10 He hath remembered his covenant for ever, the word whichhe commanded to a thousand generations. Which covenant he made with Abraham, and his oath unto Isaac; And confirmed the same unto Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant:

Paul tells us in Galatians that this Covenant was confirmed 430 years before the Law was given.
Gen.48:20-22 And he blessed them that day, saying, In thee shall Israel bless, saying, God make thee as Ephraim and as Manasseh: and he set Ephraim before Manasseh. And Israel said unto Joseph, Behold, I die: but God shall be with you, and bring you again unto the land of your fathers. Moreover I have given to thee one portion above thy brethren, which I took out of the hand of the Amorite with my sword and with my bow.

In Gen.15 God tells Abraham that his seed would be in bondage 400 years (those were the years in Egypt), different from the confirming of the Covenant. So the time frame of Jacobs (Israel) confirming the Covenant with Joseph, and Ephraim seems to fit nicely.
Gen. 15:13 And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;Rose
Here is the chart that I mentioned. I't on a good website called preterist archive.
http://www.preteristarchive.com/ARTchive/charts/Preterist/Full/jericho.gif

Yes, Yes,Yes
All GOOD stuff. I especially like the Psalms passage. It shows that the properties of the covenant of Mercy was established through the experiences of the Patriarchs as an everlasting LAW of the covenant of Mercy (as Paul describes in Romans 9)
And yes, the Abrahamic covenant is the covenant which Paul refers to in the beginning of Gal 3:17.
But this is not the "old" covenant which was made "old" by the prophecy of the "new" covenant to which Hebrews talks about.
If you get a chance to read the 'long' post, I think you'll see.

When Jeremiah said a new covenant, he said 'NOT LIKE" the covenant I made WHEN I TOOK THEM BY THE HAND AND LED THEM OUT OF EGYPT.
The covenant Moses made with the people to form a Nation is the conditional Mosaic covenant which is the one that is abolished by the 'New" covenant. When Hebrews talks about the 'old Covenant' beiing abolished, annulled inferior, etc. it is this Mosaic covenant. It 'contained' the its own law also, but was also called the commandment (to the nation) and is a covenant separate from the Abrahamic covenant as the everlasting covenant and was never a corporal covenant to a nation.
The previous blessings through the Patriarchs were the unconditional covenant of Mercy through faith as it passed through them.

There was dual or triiple covenants operating during the existence of national Israel.
1. The covenant of Mercy..AKA Edenic, Noahidic, Abrahmic, (and NEW) covenant and passed through the Patriarchs and among the people till all fulfilled in Christ and his seed... US.
2. The conditional/land/nation covenant given in Deut 1-32 (mostly chapters 11-32) by Moses and accepted by Joshua. It had a beginning and 'end'/latter end. This also contained the 10 commandment Law, and was called the Law and the commandment as well as the Mosaic COVENANT. Thus Paul is comparing the Abrahamic covenant with the Law of the the Mosaic Covenant. The Mosaic covenant (the law) cannot annul the Abrahamic covenant,(the promise) But when he says the 'New" covenant he mades the Mosaic national/conditional covenant "OLD". Since the temple was associated with the Mosaic covenant, this and the temple service is what was soon to vanish away along with the judgment poured out on compelled performance conditional ways of seeking the kingdom.
3. The geneological covenant that the Physical seed of the covenant of Mercy would come 'in Abrahams generations'
I think this was some in Gen 17. It is worded similar to how the rainbow sign was a sign covenant along with the covenant of Mercy was to Noah.
The first one is fulfilled and continues to all peoples/nations languages through the seed which was to be Christ. The second and 3rd fulfilled their purposes and are not needed and are no longer in effect. To continue in the second brought judgment and wrath. This is why there is not biblical 'old covenant' nation of Israel who operate in the Mosaic covenant. It is abolished.

Hopefully you'll get a chance to read through the 'big' post later.

[Rose]

Here is the chart that I mentioned. I't on a good website called preterist archive.
http://www.preteristarchive.com/ARTchive/charts/Preterist/Full/jericho.gif

Yes, Yes,Yes
All GOOD stuff. I especially like the Psalms passage. It shows that the properties of the covenant of Mercy was established through the experiences of the Patriarchs as an everlasting LAW of the covenant of Mercy (as Paul describes in Romans 9)
And yes, the Abrahamic covenant is the covenant which Paul refers to in the beginning of Gal 3:17.
But this is not the "old" covenant which was made "old" by the prophecy of the "new" covenant to which Hebrews talks about.
If you get a chance to read the 'long' post, I think you'll see.

When Jeremiah said a new covenant, he said 'NOT LIKE" the covenant I made WHEN I TOOK THEM BY THE HAND AND LED THEM OUT OF EGYPT.
The covenant Moses made with the people to form a Nation is the conditional Mosaic covenant which is the one that is abolished by the 'New" covenant. When Hebrews talks about the 'old Covenant' beiing abolished, annulled inferior, etc. it is this Mosaic covenant. It 'contained' the its own law also, but was also called the commandment (to the nation) and is a covenant separate from the Abrahamic covenant as the everlasting covenant and was never a corporal covenant to a nation.
The previous blessings through the Patriarchs were the unconditional covenant of Mercy through faith as it passed through them.

There was dual or triiple covenants operating during the existence of national Israel.
1. The covenant of Mercy..AKA Edenic, Noahidic, Abrahmic, (and NEW) covenant and passed through the Patriarchs and among the people till all fulfilled in Christ and his seed... US.
2. The conditional/land/nation covenant given in Deut 1-32 (mostly chapters 11-32) by Moses and accepted by Joshua. It had a beginning and 'end'/latter end. This also contained the 10 commandment Law, and was called the Law and the commandment as well as the Mosaic COVENANT. Thus Paul is comparing the Abrahamic covenant with the Law of the the Mosaic Covenant. The Mosaic covenant (the law) cannot annul the Abrahamic covenant,(the promise) But when he says the 'New" covenant he mades the Mosaic national/conditional covenant "OLD". Since the temple was associated with the Mosaic covenant, this and the temple service is what was soon to vanish away along with the judgment poured out on compelled performance conditional ways of seeking the kingdom.
3. The geneological covenant that the Physical seed of the covenant of Mercy would come 'in Abrahams generations'
I think this was some in Gen 17. It is worded similar to how the rainbow sign was a sign covenant along with the covenant of Mercy was to Noah.
The first one is fulfilled and continues to all peoples/nations languages through the seed which was to be Christ. The second and 3rd fulfilled their purposes and are not needed and are no longer in effect. To continue in the second brought judgment and wrath. This is why there is not biblical 'old covenant' nation of Israel who operate in the Mosaic covenant. It is abolished.

Hopefully you'll get a chance to read through the 'big' post later.

I went back a couple pages on this thread and read through some of your posts, so I have a pretty good understanding of why you would think there are multiple Covenants, but I myself can't justify that conclusion. In Galatians when Paul speaks of the Law that was added to the Covenant because of transgressions, he was speaking of the Abrahamic Covenant that was confirmed with Jacob (Israel) before they went into bondage in Egypt for 400 years. The Law was added to the Covenant at Mt. Sinai, when God gave it to Moses. That Covenant is what we call the Old Covenant, the one that was made New through Christ.

Nowhere does Paul differentiate between multiple Covenants. He always speaks of the Covenant made with Abraham, and added to with Moses as the Covenant that Christ came to make New. Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, that was put on the Covenant because of transgressions, and fulfilled in Himself all the promises given to Abraham and his seed.
Gal. 3:13-14 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Those that were under the Old Covenant were under the Law, now through the New Covenant brought in by Christ we are under Grace. The burden of the Law was lifted through Jesus.
Gal. 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

Rose

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

In Galatians when Paul speaks of the Law that was added to the Covenant because of transgressions, he was speaking of the Abrahamic Covenant that was confirmed with Jacob (Israel) before they went into bondage in Egypt for 400 years. The Law was added to the Covenant at Mt. Sinai, when God gave it to Moses. That Covenant is what we call the Old Covenant, the one that was made New through Christ.

[/INDENT]Rose
Being Older, does not make it Old or Obsolete?

Paul does not say that the law was added to the covenant, thus this would be an assumption. It could just as easily mean that the law was added to the people. The reason for this would be that they would most likely gravitate towards wanting to be a nation, and all the other nations had a religion with rituals and conditional beliefs. Thus God gave them a 'religion' and law that would pattern and forcast his arrival. This would be my speculation for now, but it eventually happened anyhow.

The only place a covenant is called "old" is in 2 Cor 3 and Hebrews 8.
Both refer to the covenant of Moses.

But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which [vail] is done away in Christ.
But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.
Here reading Moses is reading the old testament (covenant)

Then in Hebrews 8:

In that he saith, A new [covenant], he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old ready to vanish away.

Now which is the first covenant that is made "old" and obsolete? The Abrahamic covenant?
No, It was the covenant that he made with them when He led them by the hand out of Egypt. It states this right in the promise of the new covenant that it would be contrasted against the old covenant. See verse 9 below.

Being the prior covenant does make it older, but does not make it OLD, for the Abrahamic covenant lives on in Christ. When he called the mosaic covenant "old" it was meaning 'obsolete'.


6But 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.

7For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

8For 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:

9Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers[I] 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.

Now what is that covenant about?

In Deut 2:3 is says that this is a unique covenant and was not made with their fathers. Thus the Mosaic covenant is much more than just the 10 commandments added to the Abrahamic covenant, it is a seperate covenant made with the people who were brought out of Egypt to form a nation. Before this they were a people of common descendency with the promise of great things flowing through them and in some of them; but not "a people" or "a nation". They were first called "a people of God" in Duet 27:9 just before crossing the Jordan and when they received the .

Deut 1:3
And it came to pass in the fortieth year, in the eleventh month, on the first [day] of the month, [that] Moses spake unto the children of Israel, according unto all that the LORD had given him in commandment unto them;

Deut 5:2,;
The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb.
3 The LORD made notthis covenant with our fathers, but with us, [even] us, who [are] all of us here alive this day.

Then there was the covenant to the whole nation that also included the 10 commandments. The characteristics of this covenant were detailed in the other post. Briefly, 1. It was conditional on doing all that Moses commanded Them. 2. The conditions were corporal; one slip by anyone and the whole camp suffered. 3. It was concerning the land and the 'nation'.


Deut 29:1 These [are] the words of the covenant, which the LORD commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, beside the covenant which he made with them in Horeb.
ETC.

You said:

In Gen.15 God tells Abraham that his seed would be in bondage 400 years (those were the years in Egypt), different from the confirming of the Covenant. So the time frame of Jacobs (Israel) confirming the Covenant with Joseph, and Ephraim seems to fit nicely.
Yes, yes, yes;
The Covenant that Paul talks about in Galatians 3 is the Abrahamic covenant and it was as you noted 430 yrs before the "law". But, AS shown above the Mosaic law was also a covenant; And as shown above the Mosaic covenant is the one that is called "old". This Mosaic covenant was also called "a Law". Rather than name 2 covenants in chapter 3, he calls the Abrahamic promise the covenant, and calls the Mosaic covenant the Law.http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=law&t=KJV&csr=Deu&sf=5

Deut 1:5 On this side Jordan, in the land of Moab, began Moses to declare this law, saying,
Deut 4:8 And what nation [is there so] great, that hath statutes and judgments [so] righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?
It is also called commandment to that group so that by doing all that Moses would command them, they would remain blessed in the land.http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=commandment&t=KJV&csr=Deu&sf=5

Thus even though the Abrahamic covenant is older than the Mosaic covenant, it is not the Old covenant which is abolished by the fulfillment of the Everlasting covenant of Mercy unto eternal Life by faith confirmed and established by Jesus at the incarnation and cross.

The "new covenant" to the house of Israel/Judah of the promised land was New compared to the Mosaic Covenant. But to the Abrahamic covenant also the Edenic and covenent passed through Noah, the "new" covenant is the fulfillment of these covenants of Mercy and everlasting life.

One reason I think this is important to see, is that the mosaic covenant commanded the people to observe 'times and seasons' according to the significant dates. When the "new covenant" was ratified, it was further confirmed through the important happenings that coincided with those important dates. You already noted this in the comparison of the 40 yrs transition similarities.
There are groups that teach that the fall feasts of Israel are yet to be fulfilled and they must be fulfilled with Israel back in the land. These are mostly dispensational groups. If the fall feasts are yet to be fulfilled and were not fulfilled in the desolation and the gathering of the harvest into the kingdom of God by escaping to Pella, then the old covenant is still in effect and the New covenant is not fully established. This is how they inject the 'church age' and push back the kingdom of God to a future 'jewish' kingdom. PHARISEES!!! JUDAIZERS!!! LIARS, !!! SERPENTS!!! TALMUDISTS!!!! BAD GUYS!!! and worse..

Another issue that I think is important to see. The old covenant is described as a pattern and shadow in the book of Hebrews. The glory of the old covenant was that it was a NEGATIVE of many of the aspects of Christs ministry in the Covenant of Mercy called "new" to the house and nation of the Mosaic covenant. Jeremiah spoke the Negative concepts of he Mosaic covenant when he said NOT LIKE the old covenant. Hebrews does a great job of laying these 'negatives' out chapter after chapter.

You know how sometimes children or comedy actors on TV will say something.....sometimes sarcastic or mean... like I really Love your hair....and then walking away they will say.... NOT.... indicating a total opposite.
Here above, the New Covenant with the house and people of regathered Israel and Judah would be just like the old covenant given to Moses.... NOT!!!,
It would have opposite characteristics to Moses' covenant, not to Abrahams or Noahs covenant of Mercy to individuals of all peoples nations tongues.

God's love is based on Grace and relationship, not Law.. John or Paul says Law came through moses, but grace and truth through Christ...
Gods love and blessing are UNCONDITIONAL based on obedience of receiving by faith, not conditional on obedience of works or law of the Mosaic While we were yet sinners, he died for us... how much more will he offer blessings now that we are near to Him through faith in His Son (Himself in flesh)....
God's love and blessings are International...Not national of the Mosaic
But God's love and blessings are INDIVIDUAL NOT corporal of the Mosaic....(and yet we are part of a body)

God's love and blessing begin when one deals with (wrestles like Jacob) the law of sin/death and their mortality. "each one will die for their own sins"... This is the doorway from which eternal life enters into mortal life...and carrys thorugh...

Thus the new covenant cannot be contrasted against the Abrahamic covenant calling it "old" even though it was given before the Mosaic covenant; but it is contrasted against the Mosaic covenant calling it Old, inferior, ministry of death, not able to atone for sins; obsolete, etc... etc..

Old does not mean older, or prior, but obsolete.
I think this is part of the teaching of the old and new wineskins

Do we have a preacher stepping off a soapbox smiley.

Anyone else reading this and following it at all... say HI...

[Rose]

Which covenant is called the Old covenant? The Abrahmic covenant confirmed through Israel or the Law on Mt Sinai?

Paul does not say that the law was added to the covenant, thus this would be an assumption. It could just as easily mean that the law was added to the people. The reason for this is that they would most likely gravitate towards wanting to be a nation, and all the other nations had a religion with rituals and conditional beliefs. Thus God gave them a 'religion' and law that would pattern and forcast his arrival. This would be my speculation for now, but it eventually happened anyhow.

The only place a covenant is called "old" is in 2 Cor 3 and Hebrews 8.
Both refer to the covenant of Moses.

Here reading Moses is reading the old testament (covenant)

Then in Hebrews 8:


Now which is the first covenant that is made "old" and obsolete? The Abrahamic covenant?
No, It was the covenant that he made with them when He led them by the hand out of Egypt. It states this right in the promise of the new covenant that it would be contrasted against the old covenant. See verse 9 below.

Being the prior covenant does make it older, but does not make it OLD, for the Abrahamic covenant lives on in Christ. When he called the mosaic covenant "old" it was meaning 'obsolete'.



Now what is that covenant about?

In Deut 2:3 is says that this is a unique covenant and was not made with their fathers. Thus the Mosaic covenant is much more than just the 10 commandments added to the Abrahamic covenant, it is a seperate covenant made with the people who were brought out of Egypt to form a nation. Before this they were a people of common descendency with the promise of great things flowing through them and in some of them; but not "a people" or "a nation". They were first called "a people of God" in Duet 27:9 just before crossing the Jordan and when they received the .

Deut 1:3
And it came to pass in the fortieth year, in the eleventh month, on the first [day] of the month, [that] Moses spake unto the children of Israel, according unto all that the LORD had given him in commandment unto them;

Deut 5:2,;
The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb.
3 The LORD made notthis covenant with our fathers, but with us, [even] us, who [are] all of us here alive this day.

Then there was the covenant to the whole nation that also included the 10 commandments. The characteristics of this covenant were detailed in the other post. Briefly, 1. It was conditional on doing all that Moses commanded Them. 2. The conditions were corporal; one slip by anyone and the whole camp suffered. 3. It was concerning the land and the 'nation'.


You said:

Yes, yes, yes;
The Covenant that Paul talks about in Galatians 3 is the Abrahamic covenant and it was as you noted 430 yrs before the "law". But, AS shown above the Mosaic law was also a covenant; And as shown above the Mosaic covenant is the one that is called "old". This Mosaic covenant was also called "a Law". http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=law&t=KJV&csr=Deu&sf=5

It is also called commandment to that group so that by doing all that Moses would command them, they would remain blessed in the land.http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=commandment&t=KJV&csr=Deu&sf=5

Thus even though the Abrahamic covenant is older than the Mosaic covenant, it is not the Old covenant which is abolished by the fulfillment of the Everlasting covenant of Mercy unto eternal Life by faith confirmed and established by Jesus at the incarnation and cross.

The "new covenant" to the house of Israel/Judah of the promised land was New compared to the Mosaic Covenant. But to the Abrahamic covenant also the Edenic and covenent passed through Noah, the "new" covenant is the fulfillment of these covenants of Mercy and everlasting life.

One reason I think this is important to see, is that the mosaic covenant commanded the people to observe 'times and seasons' according to the significant dates. When the "new covenant" was ratified, it was further confirmed through the important happenings that coincided with those important dates. You already noted this in the comparison of the 40 yrs transition similarities.
There are groups that teach that the fall feasts of Israel are yet to be fulfilled and they must be fulfilled with Israel back in the land. These are mostly dispensational groups. If the fall feasts are yet to be fulfilled and were not fulfilled in the desolation and the gathering of the harvest into the kingdom of God by escaping to Pella, then the old covenant is still in effect and the New covenant is not fully established. This is how they inject the 'church age' and push back the kingdom of God to a future 'jewish' kingdom. PHARISEES!!! JUDAIZERS!!! LIARS, !!! SERPENTS!!! TALMUDISTS!!!! BAD GUYS!!! and worse..

Another issue that I think is important to see. The old covenant is described as a pattern and shadow in the book of Hebrews. The glory of the old covenant was that it was a NEGATIVE of many of the aspects of Christs ministry in the Covenant of Mercy called "new" to the house and nation of the Mosaic covenant. Jeremiah spoke the Negative concepts of he Mosaic covenant when he said NOT LIKE the old covenant. Hebrews does a great job of laying these 'negatives' out chapter after chapter.

You know how sometimes children or comedy actors on TV will say something.....sometimes sarcastic or mean... like I really Love your hair....and then walking away they will say.... NOT.... indicating a total opposite.
Here above, the New Covenant with the house and people of regathered Israel and Judah would be just like the old covenant given to Moses.... NOT!!!,
It would have opposite characteristics to Moses' covenant, not to Abrahams or Noahs covenant of Mercy to individuals of all peoples nations tongues.

God's love is based on Grace and relationship, not Law.. John or Paul says Law came through moses, but grace and truth through Christ...
Gods love and blessing are UNCONDITIONAL based on obedience of receiving by faith, not conditional on obedience of works or law of the Mosaic While we were yet sinners, he died for us... how much more will he offer blessings now that we are near to Him through faith in His Son (Himself in flesh)....
God's love and blessings are International...Not national of the Mosaic
But God's love and blessings are INDIVIDUAL NOT corporal of the Mosaic....(and yet we are part of a body)

God's love and blessing begin when one deals with (wrestles like Jacob) the law of sin/death and their mortality. "each one will die for their own sins"... This is the doorway from which eternal life enters into mortal life...and carrys thorugh...

Thus the new covenant cannot be contrasted against the Abrahamic covenant calling it "old" even though it was given before the Mosaic covenant; but it is contrasted against the Mosaic covenant calling it Old, inferior, ministry of death, not able to atone for sins; obsolete, etc... etc..

Old does not mean older, or prior, but obsolete.
I think this is part of the teaching of the old and new wineskins

Do we have a preacher stepping off a soapbox smiley.

Anyone else reading this and following it at all... say HI...

Hi EndtimesDeut32, :icon_hello:


I think we are both basically on the same page, but instead of seeing multiple separate Covenants, I see the Law, which was a Covenant given to Moses, being a burden added to, and carried on the back of, the Covenant God made with Abraham because of transgressions. Both Covenants are bound together, without the Covenant with Abraham there would have been no need for an added Covenant of Law, because there would have been no transgressions. The adding of the Covenant of the Law to the Covenant of promise in no way annulled the promises, it only served as a "schoolmaster" to lead them to Christ.

When Christ came He took the burden of the Law which was added because of sin, and gave us Grace....leaving intact and fulfilling all the promises given to Abraham. The final display of the Law being completely destroyed, was when every stone of the Temple was knocked down and it was found no more. As long as the Temple stood, the tug of the Law was there keeping the Jew in bondage.

Rose

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

Hi EndtimesDeut32, :icon_hello:


I think we are both basically on the same page, but instead of seeing multiple separate Covenants, I see the Law, which was a Covenant given to Moses, being a burden added to, and carried on the back of, the Covenant God made with Abraham because of transgressions. Both Covenants are bound together, without the Covenant with Abraham there would have been no need for an added Covenant of Law, because there would have been no transgressions. The adding of the Covenant of the Law to the Covenant of promise in no way annulled the promises, it only served as a "schoolmaster" to lead them to Christ.

When Christ came He took the burden of the Law which was added because of sin, and gave us Grace....leaving intact and fulfilling all the promises given to Abraham. The final display of the Law being completely destroyed, was when every stone of the Temple was knocked down and it was found no more. As long as the Temple stood, the tug of the Law was there keeping the Jew in bondage.

Rose
Yes, I agree that we're on the same page. But I do see the mosaic covenant as a separate covenant as stated by Moses in
Deut 5:2,;
The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb.
3 The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, [even] us, who [are] all of us here alive this day.

I do think its somewhat important to distinguish between the "OLD", obsolete Mosaic covennat and the 'older' Abrahamic covenant. The Abrahamic covenant is never called "OLD" and thus no part of it was inferior or obsolete; nor did it contain the covenant or law of Moses. That was to the specific nation of Israel, and although individuals in the nation could still have faith in the covenant of Mercy, the goal of the Mosaic covenant was remaining blessed in the land through keeping all the conditions of the covenant.

The Abrahamic covenant was part of the expansion of the covenant of Mercy that in (Christ) will all nations of the earth be blessed. The mosaic covenant was opposite, called the ministry of death. The blessings of Abraham through faith and the Spirit are not obsolete but the mosaic covenant to a people and nation of Israel has ended its enforcement...

Thanks for reading. I know some of these are new concepts; I think it's probably new due to the degree of ingraining into pro national israel thought that we've experienced through dispensationism.
The mosaic covenant to the nation of israel was the 'parenthesis' within the everlasting covenant(s) of Mercy passed through Abel, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Ephraim...David ...etc..and those of faith through all ages to call on the name (good character) of the Lord; that was established in Christ.

I think this concludes our program for this evening :pop2:
Again, perhaps someone will come along to read this and be helped.

This got tracked off of 'the days of Noah", but those who kept faith in the conditional old covenant after the fulfilment of the New Covenant were swept away like a flood...... and the info in here was part of the reason to ask Joel to read Duet.

[Rose]

Yes, I agree that we're on the same page. But I do see the mosaic covenant as a separate covenant as stated by Moses in
Deut 5:2,;
The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb.
3 The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, [even] us, who [are] all of us here alive this day.

I do think its somewhat important to distinguish between the "OLD", obsolete Mosaic covennat and the 'older' Abrahamic covenant. The Abrahamic covenant is never called "OLD" and thus no part of it was inferior or obsolete; nor did it contain the covenant or law of Moses. That was to the specific nation of Israel, and although individuals in the nation could still have faith in the covenant of Mercy, the goal of the Mosaic covenant was remaining blessed in the land through keeping all the conditions of the covenant.

The Abrahamic covenant was part of the expansion of the covenant of Mercy that in (Christ) will all nations of the earth be blessed. The mosaic covenant was opposite, called the ministry of death. The blessings of Abraham through faith and the Spirit are not obsolete but the mosaic covenant to a people and nation of Israel has ended its enforcement...

Thanks for reading. I know some of these are new concepts; I think it's probably new due to the degree of ingraining into pro national israel thought that we've experienced through dispensationism.
The mosaic covenant to the nation of israel was the 'parenthesis' within the everlasting covenant(s) of Mercy passed through Abel, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Ephraim...David ...etc..and those of faith through all ages to call on the name (good character) of the Lord; that was established in Christ.

I think this concludes our program for this evening :pop2:
Again, perhaps someone will come along to read this and be helped.

This got tracked off of 'the days of Noah", but those who kept faith in the conditional old covenant after the fulfilment of the New Covenant were swept away like a flood...... and the info in here was part of the reason to ask Joel to read Duet.

A very good program indeed, :applause: thank you for participating...:signthankspin:

In concluding this program I will say that neither do I think that the Covenant of Abraham contained the Covenant of the Law, but rather the Law was added afterward, because of sin.

Instead of calling the Covenant of the Law a "parenthesis" within the Abrahamic Covenant I would call it a "rider" (that which is added to a legal document) added to the older, already existing Covenant of Abraham.

Rose

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

A very good program indeed, :applause: thank you for participating...:signthankspin:

In concluding this program I will say that neither do I think that the Covenant of Abraham contained the Covenant of the Law, but rather the Law was added afterward, because of sin.

Instead of calling the Covenant of the Law a "parenthesis" within the Abrahamic Covenant I would call it a "rider" (that which is added to a legal document) added to the older, already existing Covenant of Abraham.

Rose
And with that we part the discussion agreeing to disagree for now on a somewhat mild issue.

It is more that the 'nation' of Israel of the Mosaic covenant was a parenthesis, within the operation of the Covenant of Mercy; but a necessary parenthesis. It was the anti-type of the Covenant of Mercy although the Covenant of Mercy to individuals remained active in Israel and passed through the generations.

The "nation" of old covenant Israel was only an entity blessed by God due to the complete Mosaic Covenant (not just the 10 commandment law). Moses said in Duet 27:9, This day thou art become a people of God: as they prepared to cross the Jordan.

Ok, I'm beginning to see your aspect, and that since their return to the land from egypt was prophesied to Abraham that it would be a rider of that covenant.

I think rather that just as each successive development of the covenant of Mercy was added; the mosaic covenant was one of those continued developments or expansions but was an antitype of what the eternal laws of the fulfilled covenant of mercy to individuals in all nations/languages tongues would be. Because it had a beginning and an end, is one reason I perceive it as a parenthesis, but one that culminated at the same time as the Abrahamic and the geneologic.

[Rose]

And with that we part the discussion agreeing to disagree for now on a somewhat mild issue.

It is more that the 'nation' of Israel of the Mosaic covenant was a parenthesis, within the operation of the Covenant of Mercy; but a necessary parenthesis. It was the anti-type of the Covenant of Mercy although the Covenant of Mercy to individuals remained active in Israel and passed through the generations.

The "nation" of old covenant Israel was only an entity blessed by God due to the complete Mosaic Covenant (not just the 10 commandment law). Moses said in Duet 27:9, This day thou art become a people of God: as they prepared to cross the Jordan.

Ok, I'm beginning to see your aspect, and that since their return to the land from egypt was prophesied to Abraham that it would be a rider of that covenant.

I think rather that just as each successive development of the covenant of Mercy was added; the mosaic covenant was one of those continued developments or expansions but was an antitype of what the eternal laws of the fulfilled covenant of mercy to individuals in all nations/languages tongues would be. Because it had a beginning and an end, is one reason I perceive it as a parenthesis, but one that culminated at the same time as the Abrahamic and the geneologic.

Hi EndtimesDeut32,

You are right, the Law had a beginning and an end, because it was added for a purpose.....because of transgressions, and to lead them to Christ, whereas the Covenant made with Abraham was of promises that were everlasting, they too were fulfilled in Christ. When Christ came the Law of ordinances was replaced by Grace.

The point you noted about the prophetic vision given to Abraham of the 400 years of bondage being a link in the continuity of the Covenants is correct. And I do see what you're saying about the bondage of the Law that the Jews were under, being like a "parenthesis" within the everlasting Covenant of Abraham, keeping them contained within those parameters until the Deliverer would come.

Many Blessings,

Rose

[TheForgiven]

:DI'm officially blown away. :bricks: You two are having a great discussion, but I feel like a ton of bricks just landed on my head. :lol:

I've got to go bowling tonight, so I won't post anything. Just didn't want you all to think that I died or something. :D Although I am wondering where the others are...

Where are you my fellow loving Futurist's? You haven't jumped ship on us have you? :confused:

We may not agree, and you don't have to believe what we do (yet :D) but we all love you...hopefully you love us.

I'll return friend..

Joe

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

:DI'm officially blown away. :bricks: You two are having a great discussion, but I feel like a ton of bricks just landed on my head. :lol:

I've got to go bowling tonight, so I won't post anything. Just didn't want you all to think that I died or something. :D Although I am wondering where the others are...

Where are you my fellow loving Futurist's? You haven't jumped ship on us have you? :confused:

We may not agree, and you don't have to believe what we do (yet :D) but we all love you...hopefully you love us.

I'll return friend..

Joe
Hi Joe,
I do believe also that this discussion is powerful. That is how I felt when I read Deut 32: and especially focusing on the 'end' prophesied and on vs 42 in the NKJV after understanding the 'old covenant' began from Moses onward)

Connecting the 'end' of Daniels visions, (with other prophesies of other prophets about the end of 'old heavens, old earth,) and the 'end' of the Olivet with the 'end' of the old national conditional covenant prophesied in the giving of the covenant itself in Deut and esp Deut 32 drastically solidifies the Goodness of the creator and his covenant of Mercy.


Rose:
Been thinking about the rider covenant Idea a little more.
I still kinda lean towards the idea that all covenants after Eden were pointing towards and developing the depth of the covenant of everlasting life and Mercy.
The convenant to Noah, Abraham, David, etc were positive aspects. The generation covenant was a confirming covenant of the physical seed, And the Abrahamic covenant was more about blessings and nature of the spiritual seed.

The Mosaic covenant would end slightly later from the Abrahamic although both the Abrahamic, the generational covenant and the Mosaic (and in a sense the prophetic points of the flood; the end would come like a flood; dan 9:26,27) all contained effects that ended in 30 to 70 AD. Again, the Mosaic stand out from these as a negative covenant to show additional parts of the everlasting covenant of Mercy.

How true when Jesus said "the end of all things is at hand".... or as Peter wrote, the end of all things is upon "YOU".... those people to whom he originally wrote.
The 'end' purposes is also upon each life individually... ARe these things living realities and we all created as redeemable souls created in the divine image and characteristics of the Creator.... or are we just animals,... "goy"... Chattel"....to the humanists, atheist, evolutionists, 'Judaizers" who say these things never happened.

[TheForgiven]

I do not have much to offer on this topic, although I am very interested in it. Thus far, I'm learing from the best sources; you (Deut32) and sister Rose.

Say Rose? Where's that old husband of yours? :lol: He still plugging away at the old puter?

Joe

[Rose]

I do not have much to offer on this topic, although I am very interested in it. Thus far, I'm learing from the best sources; you (Deut32) and sister Rose.

Say Rose? Where's that old husband of yours? :lol: He still plugging away at the old puter?

Joe

Yep, his old computer is about ready to die, :smash: so he had to get a new machine....now he's busy installing all the software from his old machine to the new one...:typing: hopefully everything goes well, and there will be a smooth transition :break:so he can get back to working on his website :ranger: and the Forum of course....:D

Rose

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

I do not have much to offer on this topic, although I am very interested in it. Thus far, I'm learing from the best sources; you (Deut32) and sister Rose.

Say Rose? Where's that old husband of yours? :lol: He still plugging away at the old puter?

Joe
To be TRUE:
The Holy Spirit is the teacher. Not everyone is asking questions pertaining to these evaluations.
In preterism the 'end' and end purpose of all things prophetic occurred and the Covenant of Mercy, and the Giver of the covenant of Mercy is Glorified as the individual 'IN" christ through his election, faith, etc..walk in the Way of Life of the Creator through the Spirit.

Those who would say that Israel of the Law is to come back on the scene 'after' the church age, or that we are still in the Mosaic covenant either glorify the law...maintaining hatred against God or their fellow man.... or simply are repeating doctrine they have been taught.
This is the yeast of the PHarisees, the fables of the Jews.. etc and I believe a sinister plot formulated from the time of the Hellenists that you mention and brought to fruition through Scofield and other dispensational/zionist programs.

These things are not taught by men, but taught in the inner heart by the Spirit.
The opposite dichotomy would be exemplified as found on a bible colleges website which I recently viewed. It said to the effect. 'XYZ will teach you how to understand, apply, and communicate the truth of God's Word in today's world.
(they will indoctrinate you into their theology)
The goal for students at XYZ is both a solid knowledge of God's Word (and their interpretation of it) and a profound understanding of the Word. When knowledge and understanding come together, they can't be kept inside, but will be expressed through your life now and into the future. (In order to pay off your loans, you'll need to get a professional ministerial position, in which you'll have to repeat the futurist, bless Israel to be blessed, perspective that you've been indoctrinated into.)
Bible college movement began from the Niagara Prophecy conferences with Scofield a huge player.
Not all taught in bible colleges is negative, but the whole concept of having to be externally indoctrinated into understanding and knowledge (while holding back other perspectives) is foreign to the new covenant promises.

[Rose]

Rose:
Been thinking about the rider covenant Idea a little more.
I still kinda lean towards the idea that all covenants after Eden were pointing towards and developing the depth of the covenant of everlasting life and Mercy.
The convenant to Noah, Abraham, David, etc were positive aspects. The generation covenant was a confirming covenant of the physical seed, And the Abrahamic covenant was more about blessings and nature of the spiritual seed.

The Mosaic covenant would end slightly later from the Abrahamic although both the Abrahamic, the generational covenant and the Mosaic (and in a sense the prophetic points of the flood; the end would come like a flood; dan 9:26,27) all contained effects that ended in 30 to 70 AD. Again, the Mosaic stand out from these as a negative covenant to show additional parts of the everlasting covenant of Mercy.

Another important thing to keep in mind when viewing the Law as a "rider" attached to the Covenant with Abraham, is that the sign of the Covenant that God made with Abraham was "circumcision",....and that sign remained the same for the Law. That in and of itself is a strong witness to the fact that the Covenant that God made with Abraham was the same Covenant that the Law was added to because of transgressions,....and the same Covenant that Jesus fulfilled all the promises to,....and the same Covenant that He lifted the bondage of the Law from.....thus restoring and fulfilling the Covenant God made with Abraham, "Abraham believed God and it was counted unto him as righteousness".

Now we can enter in to the New Covenant by faith in Christ, and its counted unto us as righteousness.

Rose

Rose

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

That in and of itself is a strong witness to the fact that the Covenant that God made with Abraham was the same Covenant that the Law was added to because of transgressions,....and the same Covenant that Jesus fulfilled all the promises to,....and the same Covenant that He lifted the bondage of the Law from.....thus restoring and fulfilling the Covenant God made with Abraham, "Abraham believed God and it was counted unto him as righteousness".

Now we can enter in to the New Covenant by faith in Christ, and its counted unto us as righteousness.

Rose

Rose
Yes, interesting, but I think the covenant of circumcison was a sign covenant of the promise of the physical fulfillment of the promise to come in Abrahams geneologies. It is true that the circumcison was re performed before entering the promised land. The sign of circumcison was the 8th day, which forecast the 8th day of the new creation. Noah was the 8th on the ship. ....
Your correct that the law was added because of trangressions. But what was the transgressions against?

[Rose]

Yes, interesting, but I think the covenant of circumcison was a sign covenant of the promise of the physical fulfillment of the promise to come in Abrahams geneologies. It is true that the circumcison was re performed before entering the promised land. The sign of circumcison was the 8th day, which forecast the 8th day of the new creation. Noah was the 8th on the ship. ....
Your correct that the law was added because of trangressions. But what was the transgressions against?

You asked: "Your correct that the law was added because of trangressions. But what was the transgressions against?"

Remember that the Covenant was made with Abraham because he believed God and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
Gen. 15:6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

James 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

But it seems from that point on transgressions against God followed. Gen. 49 is a good place to read about some of the many transgressions of the sons of Jacob.
Gen.49:3-7 Reuben, thou art my firstborn, my might, and the beginning of my strength, the excellency of dignity, and the excellency of power: Unstable as water, thou shalt not excel; because thou wentest up to thy father's bed; then defiledst thou it: he went up to my couch. Simeon and Levi are brethren; instruments of cruelty are in their habitations.O my soul, come not thou into their secret; unto their assembly, mine honour, be not thou united: for in their anger they slew a man, and in their selfwill they digged down a wall. Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce; and their wrath, for it was cruel: I will divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel.....17) Dan shall be a serpent by the way, an adder in the path, that biteth the horse heels, so that his rider shall fall backward.

Rose

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

You asked: "Your correct that the law was added because of trangressions. But what was the transgressions against?"

Remember that the Covenant was made with Abraham because he believed God and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
Gen. 15:6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

James 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

But it seems from that point on transgressions against God followed. Gen. 49 is a good place to read about some of the many transgressions of the sons of Jacob.
Gen.49:3-7 Reuben, thou art my firstborn, my might, and the beginning of my strength, the excellency of dignity, and the excellency of power: Unstable as water, thou shalt not excel; because thou wentest up to thy father's bed; then defiledst thou it: he went up to my couch. Simeon and Levi are brethren; instruments of cruelty are in their habitations.O my soul, come not thou into their secret; unto their assembly, mine honour, be not thou united: for in their anger they slew a man, and in their selfwill they digged down a wall. Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce; and their wrath, for it was cruel: I will divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel.....17) Dan shall be a serpent by the way, an adder in the path, that biteth the horse heels, so that his rider shall fall backward.

Rose

So then there would have been common law before the old covenant law.
Noah was told after the flood that anyone who spills mans blood, of man that blood shall be avenged. (something like that) Perhaps these other 'common law" and law of conscience due to the Laws observed in the creation were being transgressed against.
It could also mean transgressions against the 'law of righteousness by faith" for those who desired a religion or did not desire to honor the Creator.

[Rose]

So then there would have been common law before the old covenant law.
Noah was told after the flood that anyone who spills mans blood, of man that blood shall be avenged. (something like that) Perhaps these other 'common law" and law of conscience due to the Laws observed in the creation were being transgressed against.
It could also mean transgressions against the 'law of righteousness by faith" for those who desired a religion or did not desire to honor the Creator.

Hi EndtimesDeut32,

We know as far back as Cain and Abel that there was "common law". The Lord had respect for Abel's offering and not for Cains which shows a standard of good and evil was in place. The Lord told Cain if he did well he would be accepted, and if not then sin would desire to have him. When Cain did evil and killed his brother he was cursed by God.
Gen. 4:3- And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell. And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him. And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him. And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper? And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground. And now artthou cursed from the earth , which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand;

Remember, Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil, so they and their offspring would well know what was good or evil in the eyes of God.

Rose

[CWH]

It is interesting to note that Luke adds to Matthew "in the days of Lot" as well.

I am referring to our Lord's statement in Luke 17:26-30:

"And as it was in the days of Noe, (Noah) so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed."

What was in the days of Lot? Homosexuality! It was rampant during Lot's time which was why God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. Doesn't it sounds like what is in the present days, furthermore with gay rights and gay marriages? Sodomy comes from the word Sodom, the city that God destroyed with brimstone and fire from heaven.

Many Blessings to all.

[TheForgiven]

What was in the days of Lot? Homosexuality! It was rampant during Lot's time which was why God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. Doesn't it sounds like what is in the present days, furthermore with gay rights and gay marriages? Sodomy comes from the word Sodom, the city that God destroyed with brimstone and fire from heaven.

Many Blessings to all.

You won't find today's time any different to the ancients with regards to homosexuality my friend. In fact, you'd be surprised to know that a few of the Roman Emperor's were homosexual. Claudius Caesar was even worse, being a child molester of young boys. After he has his pleasure with them, he would throw them out of the window atop his castle.

Homosexual conduct was also common among the Greeks. It is thought that Alexander the Great was himself a bi-sexual male.

You won't find much room for appealing to modern day sins to that of the ancients, as though we are the end times. The end times were completed on schedule in the first century. Thus, the sinners you see today are those who abide outside of the gates of the New Jerusalem. And if they die unrepentant, they will be judged. We can only hope that sinners can see the light. But they won't if false prophets keep broadcasting doom and gloom. You don't scare someone into the arms of Christ Jesus; you love them, and show them that you too are a sinner.

Joe

[Rose]

It is interesting to note that Luke adds to Matthew "in the days of Lot" as well.

I am referring to our Lord's statement in Luke 17:26-30:

"And as it was in the days of Noe, (Noah) so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed."

What was in the days of Lot? Homosexuality! It was rampant during Lot's time which was why God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. Doesn't it sounds like what is in the present days, furthermore with gay rights and gay marriages? Sodomy comes from the word Sodom, the city that God destroyed with brimstone and fire from heaven.

Many Blessings to all.

Hi Cheow,

Instead of focusing on a particular sin like Homosexuality, God condemned Sodom for their extreme wickedness which included every type of sin imaginable. Remember, Abraham pleaded to God to spare the city if but 10 righteous men were found! The key is righteousness, not the type of sin.


Gen.13:13 But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly.

Gen. 18:32 And he said, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak yet but this once: Peradventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for ten's sake.

I think the reason Jesus was comparing the days of Lot to the days He was speaking of that were about to come upon Israel, was because Israel had become exceedingly wicked and they were continuing with their everyday lives as if they were holy and righteous, to the point of killing the Son of God.

It matters not what the specific sin is, God looks upon all sin the same.


Rose

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

I went back a couple pages on this thread and read through some of your posts, so I have a pretty good understanding of why you would think there are multiple Covenants, but I myself can't justify that conclusion. In Galatians when Paul speaks of the Law that was added to the Covenant because of transgressions, he was speaking of the Abrahamic Covenant that was confirmed with Jacob (Israel) before they went into bondage in Egypt for 400 years. The Law was added to the Covenant at Mt. Sinai, when God gave it to Moses. That Covenant is what we call the Old Covenant, the one that was made New through Christ.

Nowhere does Paul differentiate between multiple Covenants. He always speaks of the Covenant made with Abraham, and added to with Moses as the Covenant that Christ came to make New. Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, that was put on the Covenant because of transgressions, and fulfilled in Himself all the promises given to Abraham and his seed.
Gal. 3:13-14 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Those that were under the Old Covenant were under the Law, now through the New Covenant brought in by Christ we are under Grace. The burden of the Law was lifted through Jesus.
Gal. 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

Rose

Hi Rose,
I was just re-reading some of these posts. Perhaps we need to come to a common understanding of what the Covenant and promise to Abraham was; or at least each others perspectives.
I view Gen 12 to be the 'promise' and the covenant which Paul refers to, (in you[and your example] will all nations of the earth be blessed) and to be an extension and clarification of the covenant of mercy prophesied in Eden. Abraham was an example of the justification by faith that would accompany the covenant of Mercy against the law of sin/death.

Gen 15 and 17 I think are added promises and prophecies about how this original everlasting covenant of Mercy promied in the Garden and through Noah (my covenant) would come about. One details that the son of the promise would come through Sarah, the son of God's working, not of the concubine of doubt. There would also be a land area prophecied to which his descendants would be drawn back towards, and the fulfillment of the promise of Gen 12 would come in that land area and through the geneologies.