Resurrection Priest

One was a prophecy of the other, just as the sacrificial system and priesthood was a prophecy of what Christ would do.

Wonderful topic George. Prayers for your protection as you write your book. One thing is to notice that the priests of Isaiah's prophecy, receive a "double portion" in the land. In the original nation of Israel, the Levites received no inheritance in the land. They were supported by the tithe from the other 11 tribes. This tells me that the system in the Kingdom of Messiah will be different in some aspects, from the original. Hebrews 7:12 does say that "the priesthood" and "of necessity" also "the law" are "changed" under the New Covenant. You (I think) pointed out that people from "the nations" will also be priests in the Kingdom. The 24 elders of Revelation proclaim that they were redeemed by the blood of the Lamb "out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation" (Rev 5:9). And they will be priests on the earth. Which means they are NOT all Levites by blood/DNA. They are Levites/priests by grafting in - through faith. Revelation 20:5-6 says that everyone from "the first resurrection" will be "priests of God and of Christ". My point being that this 6000 years - I believe - is for calling the priesthood, who will serve on earth when Messiah reigns in His Kingdom. When Revelation was written down by John, the LORD had the beginnings of His priesthood - the 24 elders. I believe there may be many more than just #24 of them. King David divided the priesthood into 24 courses (1Chron. 24-25). This because the priests had increased in number to the point where they could not all officiate in the Temple. David set up a system whereby they could take turns in an orderly manner. They rotated - one rotation lasting 2 weeks. On the Feast days they all participated, because the need was much greater - more people coming up to the Temple to offer sacrifices. I think it possible, there may be 24 courses of elders, presenting serving in Heaven, preparing to serve as priests and kings on the earth - not just 24 of them.

Speaking of church fathers: Matthew 28:19 “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” Many scholars reject the triune baptismal formula as a later addition to the text. It is not found in the oldest manuscripts. The disciples are never described as using it. They baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. (It was custom to baptize a convert to Judaism in the name of the one who had taught that man, and brought him into the Covenant with Yahweh.) The Emperor Constantine commissioned and paid for a copying and compilation of the Scriptures known today as the “New Testament”. The resulting Greek text is known as the “Byzantine”. New scholarly work by those familiar with the ancient manuscripts, has revealed no Greek manuscript (or fragment) older than the time of Constantine, which contains the text of Matthew 28:19. One Aramaic manuscript survives. In that manuscript, Matthew 28:19 reads, “baptizing them in my name.” In other words, Christ commanded the disciples to baptize in HIS name. Many passages confirm the disciples did just that. Eusebius of Caesarea wrote during the 4th century. He was a “friend” of Constantine. In his work “Ecclesiastical History, Book III, Cpt 5, Section 2", he quotes Matthew 28:19 as “make disciples of all the nations in my name”. Eusebius quotes the passage in the same way in “Oration in Praise of Emperor Constantine, Cpt 16, Sect. 8". He quotes the passage in the same way some 18 times. Finally, near the end of his life, he quotes the passage just once, as “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”. He may have been influenced by his loyalty to the Emperor, or by fear of the Emperor. We just do not know. It is also possible, that someone altered that one quotation. I would welcome input from any familiar with research on Matthew 28:19 and ancient manuscripts.

What happened at the Jordan was the anointing. Only kings and priests were "anointed". They were anointed with pure first press olive oil. Jesus would be both. Who could "anoint" Jesus - as both King and High Priest ? Answer: His Father - God. God the Father anointed His only begotten Son - with His Spirit. Acts 10:38 "how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him." (NKJ) After this anointing Jesus could boldly say, "the Father who dwells in me, does the works" (John 14:10). The glorious dove form (rather than literal olive oil) does not change the scenario. God the Father anointed His Son, with His Spirit. He even identified Himself. "This is MY beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." He did not say, 'our beloved son, in whom we are well please'.

Yes. I find it interesting/confusing that one could speak against "the Son of Man" but could not blaspheme the Holy Spirit. If BOTH are "God", why the difference? And what about blasphemy against God the Father? That is not even mentioned. Personally, I believe the Holy Spirit IS God the Father. The Holy Spirit is "His Spirit". The Father is after all - omnipresent. Right? Jesus said the Father, who is in the secret place, will reward you openly. (Matt 6:6, 6:18) Jesus said, "the Father who dwells in me, does the works" (all the miracles). John 14:10 Jesus said, John 6:44 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them" Ephesians 4:4-6 “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” If God the Father is "through all and in you all" - that makes Him omnipresent. That makes Him spirit. I believe God the Father "is Spirit" - and that is why blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the unpardonable sin. I don't think that means cursing just one time bars one from Heaven permanently. I think it has to be resistance, over some period of time. Stephen spoke of it. Acts 7:51 "You stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you."

Good point. The verse does make clear just who crucified God's Son. I wonder what "the princes of this world" (Satan and His Evil Ones) thought Jesus was doing here. Satan would certainly have heard Jesus say He would be killed, and then be "risen" the 3rd day. Maybe Satan thought - if he could get Jesus to sin - that he could then claim Jesus as one of his subjects, and somehow prevent that resurrection. Colossians 1:26 "the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the Lord's people. 27 To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory." (NIV) The mystery that the Evil Ones did not foresee, was that the risen glorified Jesus Christ would live "in" those who believed in Him. This would give them authority and power to resist them, and to fight against them.

Hi JustPassingThru, I do not personally believe the Church will be raptured to Heaven, and then the Jews who are left on earth with the unbelievers will go through 7 years of tribulation. That's not the scenario I think most closely fits the prophecies. That's just my opinion, based on my study. I think a long discussion on the "secret rapture" doctrine would probably best be moved to another thread.

Moses and Elijah talked with Christ before His great test. I think they encouraged Him, telling Him that He would be victorious, and that His Kingdom would be glorious and full. Moses and Elijah will witness again - just prior to the final test of mankind. In Revelation Chapter Eleven, the "two witnesses" testify for 3.5 years (1260 days, 42 months). They have power to "shut heaven so that no rain falls in the days of their prophecy" (Elijah), and power over waters to turn them to blood" (Moses). I agree that Moses and Elijah symbolize "the law" and "the prophets". I think the message of the "two witnesses" will be the same message given by Moses, and by Elijah. "Remember the Law" and "Choose ye this day whom ye will serve." Malachi 4:4-5 "Remember the Law of Moses, My servant, which I commanded him in Horeb for all Israel, the statutes and judgments. v.5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the LORD." Personally, I don't see the literal Moses and the literal Elijah re-appearing in the last days. I believe the "two witnesses" will be people, living in the last days, who give the message of Moses, and the message of Elijah. Rev. 11:4 says they "are the two olive branches and the two lampstands standing before the God of the earth." In the prophecy of the lampstands (Rev Chapter One -Three) the command "repent" is given to 5 of the churches. The command to "repent "includes the warning, "or else I will come to you quickly and will remove your lampstand from its place-unless you repent" (Rev 2:5). If you start with 7 lampstands, and 5 are removed, that leaves 2. Two lampstands still "standing before God". You have the Olive Tree with many branches. If all but 2 branches are "broken off" - that leaves 2 branches - still drawing life from "the tree". The 2 churches that are commended (rather than censured), are Smyrna (the martyrs) and Philadelphia (those who love the brethren). I think they will also be the "two witnesses" in the last days. The Elijah and Moses at the end of this age.

Yes - Jesus had passed every test up to that point. But He had another test in front of him. The Cross. Philippians 2:8 "And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." (KJV) I personally doubt that Satan actually wanted to kill Christ. I think he wanted to force Him to bail out - to cry out for angels to rescue Him. THAT would be against the Father's will. Satan would WIN. Christ could not recover the dominion of earth that Adam lost. He could not receive the promises of all the covenants - if He refused the Father's will even once. HIS OBEDIENCE bought our freedom. Hebrews 10:7 "Then said I, 'Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.'" (KJV)

I think "the law of sin and death" was in effect. IMO (Rom 8:2) Not sure what that has to do with Jesus talking with Moses and Elijah. I just thought the transfiguration was a good conversation starter. So many aspects to it. I can agree. Jesus fulfilled the terms of the Covenant with Adam, with Noah, with Abraham, with Israel. He fulfilled them perfectly. Therefore He can receive the promises of those covenants. We can receive them only if we are "in Him". The Son of God came to recover the dominion which Adam lost, because of his disobedience. That being said, "we do not yet see all things put under Him" (Heb 2:8). That will have to wait for the heavenly court, which will take "the dominion" away from Satan, and give it to Christ. That's Daniel 7:26-26. That doesn't happen til the last hours of this age. Right now, Satan is still "god of this world". There must have existed a law in Eden - a law which Adam violated. If there was no law at that time, then Adam never sinned. Paul says, "where there is no law there is no transgression either" (Romans 4:15). And people today still sin. Right? Which means there must still be "a law" - still existing today. I thought "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23). Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned-- (NAS). Sin entered the world - resulting in death - which spread to all men - BECAUSE all sinned. Hence there must have been a divine law in Eden, and in the world. If there was no law, then no one sinned. I think the KEY is in how God deals with sins. There are sins committed in ignorance. There are sins committed because someone is is trying just fails. And there are sins of rebellion - committed knowingly and arrogantly. God does not deal with these tree TYPES OF SIN, the same. Acts 17:30 "In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent." (NIV) Paul says he was forgiven because he sinned "ignorantly". Jesus said, "If you were blind, you would have no sin." If I'm remembering correctly, the daily sacrifice "covered" all sins of ignorance until such time that the sins were "known" to (understood by) the sinner. That would seem to indicate that Christ's blood "covers" all sins committed in ignorance. So it wasn't that there was no law. It was that the "moed" covered sins of ignorance committed during those times.

Why did Jesus tell the three disciples not to tell anyone about the transfiguration, until after He was risen from the dead? Answer: Because it would have appeared that Jesus was talking to dead people - a death penalty offense. But He wasn't. Elijah and Moses were both alive. Elijah was taken up in a chariot to Heaven. Elisha saw him go. Elijah did not "see death". Moses did die, but he was resurrected. That is why the argument over his body (Jude 1:9). And that is why Paul says that "death reigned from Adam to Moses" (Rom 5:14). Moses was the first person to be resurrected from death. I personally believe that Michael was the name of God's Son, prior to His incarnation. Michael means "like unto God". It seems blasphemous for any created angel to take that name. I realize Michael was called "archangel", but that just means "chief messenger". Is not God's Son, also His chief messenger, and commander of angels. Joshua 5:13 "Now it came about when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, a man was standing opposite him with his sword drawn in his hand, and Joshua went to him and said to him, "Are you for us or for our adversaries?" 14 And he said, "No, rather I indeed come now as captain of the host of the LORD." And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and bowed down, and said to him, "What has my lord to say to his servant?" 15 And the captain of the LORD's host said to Joshua, "Remove your sandals from your feet, for the place where you are standing is holy." And Joshua did so." (NAS) And NO. I am not Jehovah's Witness.

We will obey 100% of the changed Torah (without Levite priests and bleeding terrified animals). Hebrews 7:12 "For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law." Yeshua is High Priest of the New Covenant. Hebrews 7:18-19 "The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God." (NIV) Let's see. What "law" or "regulation" was "weak and useless" ? Answer: The law of the Levitical priesthood and the animal sacrifices. They "made nothing perfect". "It is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins." Look back at verse 11-12 Hebrews 7:11-12 "If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood-- and indeed the law given to the people established that priesthood-- why was there still need for another priest to come, one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? 12 For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also. (NIV) Look at 10:8-10 Hebrews 10:8 "When he [Christ} says above, "Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and sin-offerings You [Father God] did not desire nor did You take delight in them" (which are offered according to the law), 9 then he says, "Here I am: I have come to do your will." He does away with the first to establish the second. (Heb 10:8 NET) HE (GOD) "does away with" - the "sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and sin offerings" that were "offered according to the law" "to establish" - the offering of Christ "once for all" What is established - will be written on our hearts. What is done away with - will not. I can totally see why those who want to cling to the original Levite priesthood and dead animal offerings, also deny the inspiration of the Letter to the Hebrews. Personally it is one of my absolute favorite portions of Scripture.

Obey the changed TORAH.

First: We must be faithful to the changed TORAH. Not exactly the same as the First Covenant TORAH. New priesthood. New sacrifice = Yeshua the Lamb of God. Second: No one has ever been perfectly obedient - except Yeshua. His blood covers my failures, and the sins I have commit in ignorance. I think the only way to be "lost" (after being justified by the blood of Christ and receiving His Spirit) - is to openly rebel against Him. By that I mean to knowingly continue to do that which He has forbidden, in an attitude of rebellion. Sin "with attitude" if you will. For that, "there remains no sacrifice". By that type of attitude, the person "crucifies the Son of God again". (This is not a sin that you personally hate and struggle against, but have not fully conquered yet. )

Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8, say the LORD will write His Law on our hearts. OK. His Law. But how do you know the LORD has made no "change" to "His Law", from OT to NT? 'Cause if HE made no "change" whatsoever, then it's NOT "NEW". It's just re-newed. And that has been the argument of Messianics - that there's nothing "new". Ancient Israelites did not worship Messiah. Ancient Israelites did not yet know about the Cross of Christ. They didn't know that God has a Son. They didn't know that His Son sits beside Him on His throne. So many things they didn't know. A lot hinges on one word - "changed". You define it one way, and stick to that definition. Strong's gives more than one definition. 3346 metati,qhmi metatithemi {met-at-ith'-ay-mee} Meaning: 1) to transpose (two things, one of which is put in place of the other) 1a) to transfer 1b) to change 1c) to transfer one's self or suffer one's self to be transferred 1c1) to go or pass over 1c2) to fall away or desert from one person or thing to another I go with definition #1. A new priesthood put in place of the old one. I go with #1, because the writer of Hebrews names and describes that "new" priesthood - Melchizedek - "the firstborn", which is "put in place of" the Levite/Aaronic. I go with #1, because "there is also a change of the Law" to allow for that "change" of the priesthood. The definition of "change" has to be the SAME for both uses of the word. They're in the same sentence. "The priesthood being changed, there is of necessity also a change of the Law" (Hebrews 7:12). Now - the "change" to the Law is limited to the change of the priesthood. It's not that the whole thing was revised. IF - big IF - there is a Temple during the millennium to come, the priesthood ministering at that Temple will be Melchizedek - NOT LEVITE. The Levite only prophesied of the Melchizedek to come, just as the lambs prophesied Christ to come. The "Sons of Zadok" will be those who stand by Yeshua Messiah. The original Sons of Zadok (who stood by David) were a prophecy of the ones to come. Yes - I think it very possible that some of the original "sons of Zadok" may become Melchizedek priests for the kingdom to come.

I've been asked to give a talk to a group of local women, from several different churches in this area, about the Ancient Feast Days, and how they were prophesied what Christ would do, and will yet do. I'm just wondering . . . if the Temple with all of the Sinai Levite priesthood, and all the animal sacrifices is still needed, for teaching and commemorative purposes on what Christ did - how could I today understand what Christ did? How could any person understand it, who did not actually go up to that Temple, and did not present an animal for sacrifice (and kill that animal too by the way)? That's a whopping lot of people - who didn't/don't "really" understand what God did by sending His Son to die for us. I just can't believe that system of killing - that giant slaughter house, is "needed" for folks to understand what God did for us. I understand what an animal looks like when it's dying. My grandfather owned a slaughter house. He used to take me out there when I was only 4-6 years old. It was yucky! The animals could smell the blood. They were terrified! I remember a great big guy who cut the animals to gut them, and how the guts spilled out on the slaughterhouse floor. I can still close my eyes and see it. The smell out there was awful. Can't even imagine a constant, unending barbecue smell (incense not withstanding). Not my idea of the earth made new. To bring that many animals into the heart of Jerusalem, would take stockyards all around the city. Yuk! I completely embrace God's use of the sacrificial system, in concert with the Feast Days as prophecy. I do NOT BELIEVE that system was still needed for folks after "the Cross" to believe in Yeshua as Savior. Though I have seen the light of appreciation in the eyes of those who "see" for the first time, how Christ fulfills the ancient Feast prophecies. They are often amazed at the intricacy and detail. They have "seen it" because I've told them about it, NOT because they went up to Jerusalem to see the killing/burning of animals. They've looked at pictures. Besides, no one standing in the Courtyard can see into the Temple anyway. They cannot "see" what the priest does in there, any more than we can "see" into Heaven - where our High Priest is presently ministering. Someone has to explain it to them, or show them pictures. That's no different from what we can do now - showing pictures and explaining what happened. I do believe "the Feasts of the LORD" will be celebrated in the earth made new. NOT with the slaughter of animals, but with Christ Himself, and with His Melchizedek priests.

Matthew 24 Just reading through the passage again: The disciples asked about the signs of His glorious coming. Right? So Jesus gives a great many signs. Then Jesus says, "Assuredly, I say to you, 'this generation will by no means pass away till all these things are fulfilled.'" OK. What generation is Jesus speaking of? The generation of His disciples - their lifetimes. I didn't get that impression from the passage. I got the impression that the generation who see all those signs - will see His glorious "coming". That's the generation that would not pass away til all of it is fulfilled. Jesus was speaking of THE LAST GENERATION - not the one sitting at His feet that day. Matthew 16:27 [The context: Jesus confirms He is the Son of God, talks about His impending death and resurrection] "For the Son of Man will come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done." 28 I tell you the truth, there are some standing here who will not experience death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." (Mat 16:27) Does "coming in his kingdom" refer only and exclusively his Glorious Return for judgment? OR Could "His coming" include the whole "coming" process from start to glorious conclusion? His "kingdom" began with the outpouring of His Spirit at Pentecost. Resurrected saints even appeared in Jerusalem to witness of His resurrection (Mat 27:52-53). Jesus told His disciples that He would be with them and "in" them. ICor 15:45 says "the Last Adam was made a life-giving spirit". Galatians 4:6 says "God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son." THAT "coming" is what those disciples (sans Judas) would "see". They would see and experience Pentecost. That WAS His glorious coming. Right? Fewer people were aware of it, than will be at the end, when He "comes" to gather His elect. But it WAS a "coming", and it was "glorious". Because there is a glorious conclusion, doesn't mean there wasn't a glorious beginning. When John the Baptist and then Jesus preached, "Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand", were they wrong? (Mat 3:2, Mat 4:17) I don't think so.

No! Christ for justification! Not TORAH. Not even SPIRIT. ONLY Christ! "we have now been justified by his blood, (Rom 5:9 NIV) This is present tense. We who are "in Christ" are justified. There is NOTHING ELSE I need to do. I already HAVE that justification. I have been declared righteous, because I am covered with HIS righteousness. That is the "shield of righteousness" (Eph 6). We were drawn by the Spirit of God the Father. We saw the Father's love for us (in His gift of His Son). We believed. We were filled with His Spirit. We loved Him back. We love Him by loving others. We are enabled by His Spirit to do this. We were certainly NOT justified by keeping His commandments. That is the result (the effect) - not the cause. John 14:15 "If you love me, keep my commands." 1 John 4:19 "We love because He first loved us." We are "reconciled" TO God the Father THROUGH the blood of Christ the Son. You think I am saying we can be justified without any works at all. I'm NOT SAYING THAT. I'm saying that one is cause. The other is effect. We were justified FIRST - through pure love alone - His love for us. THEN we will do good works, because His Spirit lives in us. When James says "faith without works is dead" - He means that a person who claims to be born again, who then always acts selfishly, is NOT REALLY "born of the Spirit". He's a fake. (Though we won't be perfect until after the resurrection.) When James writes: James 2:22 "You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected;", he is explaining that Abraham's faith was perfectly revealed by his "works" (deeds). Just remember who gets the credit for our good works. Jesus - of course. It is His Spirit working in us and through us. He is the enabler. We only consent - we volunteer to be used by Him.

Romans 5:1 Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, (NIV) I came before GOD in the person of Yeshua Messiah, to claim His body and blood as MY SACRIFICE. When I did that, I was "justified" by faith. There is NOTHING ELSE I need to do! It is a lie of the Enemy that I must do something else - to atone for my sin by good works or sacrifices of some kind, to prove my love for God. Romans 5:11 "Not only is this so, but we also boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation." The word "reconciliation" is the same word also translated as "atonement". Good works come into the picture, because they are THE RESULT of our new friendship relationship with Christ, and the RESULT of His Spirit within us. BibleGuy, I don't think you believe that we need to present animals for sacrifice, in order to receive atonement, or in order to be justified. We already HAVE those things. (If I've understood you), you think we should/will do those things to commemorate Christ's death and His works for us. Much like Christians today, "eat the bread" and "drink the wine". Is that right?

The Levite/Aaronic priesthood was changed under the New Covenant, to the Melchizedek priesthood. But the Melchizedek priesthood could not minister at the Temple existing in Jerusalem. The Levites still maintained control. The LORD would need to destroy that Temple along with it's priesthood. This He did.

Jerusalem Council instruction to new Gentile converts: Acts 15:20 "but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols (second commandment) and from fornication and from what is strangled (Lev. 19:26) and from blood (that's God's command to Noah Gen.9:4). (NAS) How do we define "fornication"? The word means "unlawful sex". According to what law? Answer: The law of Moses. The Law of Moses is still the reference point. In our present civil culture, under present civil law, almost any sexual behavior is "lawful". But we who believe in God, do not look to our civil laws to know what sexual behavior is "lawful" in the sight of God. Only "the priesthood" has been "changed".

BibleGuy, We have talked about this at length. The priesthood is the ONLY THING specifically "changed" under the New Covenant. The priesthood was "changed" - FROM the Levite/Aaronic TO the Melchizedek priesthood order of "the firstborn". This is a "change" BACK to the original order (The Son of God being THE "Firstborn"). Just as the New Covenant replaces the First Covenant, the Melchizedek priesthood replaces the Aaronic priesthood. You keep preaching that the entire First Covenant - with every command and symbolic prophetic ceremony unchanged, passes straight into the the age post Cross. I do not accept that. Why would God command that we do something, that we CANNOT do - travel up to Jerusalem, to offer animal sacrifices? And that for almost 2000 years. The blood of lambs and goats and bulls, IS NOT essential to our salvation. If it were, the LORD would have restored that Temple on the Mount.

QUESTION IS: Does the New Covenant pronounce a curse on anyone? On who? For what reason? To hear the Baptist once-saved-always-saved doctrine, the New Covenant never pronounces the curse of death upon anyone, for any reason. Once a person has entered into covenant with God through Jesus Christ, that person cannot loose that salvation, no matter what he does or doesn't do. I personally don't buy that one. The Book of Revelation is written in the format of an ancient Covenant Lawsuit. The plantiff is reviewing the terms and parties to that lawsuit, and presenting His case as to why the accused should suffer the penalty of that covenant. I would assume that Revelation is speaking of the New Covenant. So - is anyone accursed in the Book of Revelation? NOTE: One cannot be cursed by a covenant, who has not entered in to that covenant. eg: ignorant pagans, or little children

How can the curse of the Law be the Law. That doesn't make sense. Paul is not saying that the Law itself was the curse. Paul is reminding his readers that the Law pronounced a curse (death) upon those who broke that covenant. Galatians 3:13 "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law by being cursed for our sake" (NJB). Jesus suffered "the curse of the law" (death) for us. I am NOT saying that "First Covenant" is still in effect. I don't believe it is. I believe that "First Covenant" has been replaced by a "New Covenant". Because God's Son (the "husband" of that First Covenant) died, His "wife" (Israel) was left a widow. She then became "free" to marry "another man". Paul says the new husband IS the risen Messiah. That's all in Romans Cpt 7. Those who enter in to the New Covenant are effectively "betrothed" to Yeshua. Exactly what commands (given under the First Covenant) pass into the New Covenant - is debatable.

I think ALL OF US were condemned under "the law of sin and death". Right? If "the law of the spirit of life in Jesus Christ" "has delivered" all those who believe from "the law of sin and death", why cannot homosexuals be included in "all those who believe". Because they have not yet overcome their sin-ful addiction, is not a reason to exclude them from that promised deliverance. Sometimes recovery/healing/victory is a process that takes time.