The "Old Testament"

[jasoncran]

just so you know. its the lord who gave the prophets the withal to do the things in the law. it in the book of numbers when God praised caleb and joshua for having that spirit.

why would godly men risk death for a harsh and cruel god who didnt show them mercy and grace? men like shadrach et all. the prophets, joshua and moses.

just saying..

I hear you. . .why do you say he was a cruel God?

men were under that curse under the law, thats my whole point of contention. the law was never intended to make men holy it was to show men needed a saviour and when they sinned they could come to the lord and they did do that. the law failed in that area of the high priests ever faithful to make intercession but if the priest were faithful the land was blessed.

its weakness was in that the high priest was weak in that he too needed to be forgiven whereas christ always intercedes on our behalf.

[jasoncran]

i respond to that curse part with this. so king david wasnt fully forgiven when god said thy sin is removed.

god didnt say in the prophets as far as the east is from the west? that the problem here you asummed in err that God didnt forgive fully then , he did and always does when he says this is the way to me or i overlook that sin.

the curse their means that you must seek the YHWH to be forgiven.

let me ask you this. can a christian who has repented sin and not repent and willfully sin to the point that god will deny him?

i think so but that is another topic so i wont spend time there . its err to say osas as god warns to him that overcome the same shall recieve a crown. if its all on jesus and his blood why would god say that. and no im not saying we can earn our salvation but we can walk away from christ. its even said that it happening the last days per peter.

the curse their means that the debt under that law would require an animal to be cleansed from that sin and to show how unworthy any of us where.

name a perfect ot saint that didnt sin. good luck

job sinned,

daniel sinned and i can show where these men did that..

yet what does god say on them. blameless and upright. funny isnt it.

[jasoncran]

the sin when forgiven then by the law was fully forgiven if not then god lied to king david as he still held that sin agaisnt him. God doesnt do that. the animal sacrificial system is a shadow of the perfect covenant that was what paul was saying that he ot covenant didn work because of mans fraility so god in his timing sent the perfect sacrifice to change the way so that men could be interceded properly.

christ intercedes for us daily its there in hebrews when paul talks about christian making intercession.

[enoob57]

Hello Steven,

God has been taking time to show me that we can find evidence in the Old Testament of people who were led externally by the Holy Spirit. Today we have the convenience of being the temple of God and have his indwelling spirit to guide and teach us and have been shown how to access the holiest of holies within this 'tabernacle' that we walk around in. We are 'one' spirit with God. All of the OT saints who were 'born again' (remember Jesus said that everyone must be born again and expected Nicodemus to know that already) had their hearts circumcised from their flesh through their spirit. Man has always had a spirit. A mans spirit that is led by God through his Holy Spirit, whether externally or internally, is one that has been born from above. The law was meant to bring the Israelites to this place (faith of Christ), having been taught by the Holy Spirit externally. There were choice people whom God did pour his spirit out upon but they were merely to be the leaders and teachers of those who would be Gods people. But Israel failed to receive the law spiritually. They followed it in a carnal manner at best, abusing the ability that God gave them to receive an atonement though the offering of bulls and goats but God desired mercy and not sacrifice. Abraham was born again. He through the spirit mortified the deeds of the flesh by following the Word of God even when his flesh begged him not too. Everyone who is mentioned in chapter 11 of the book of Hebrews went against the logic of the human mind to follow the Word of God which has always been given by the Holy Spirit. A man can only do these things through his own spirit when the heart becomes circumcised from the flesh. The divine nature goes completely against human sinful nature. Jesus shocked people because he showed up saying things like 'give to all that ask of you' and 'do good to those that hate you'. These concepts were foreign to these people but were readily able to be studied in the Old Testament through people like David who was a man after Gods own heart. Nothing has changed except we now have seen the righteousness of God manifest in the likeness of sinful flesh and God has poured out his Spirit upon us that we might be taught directly by him internally rather than externally. To whom much is given, much is expected.

I pray that our Father will continue the most excellent work that he has begun in you and keep you blameless until the day of Jesus Christ by revelation of the righteousness of him who has called you to glory and honor that you might be strengthened in the inner man and able to have victory each day over the sin that so easily besets men.

Gary

Thank you for the blessing! I pray as well for you in this...

Outside of the scope of this thread is understanding that the blood of bulls and goats cannot save ... so Christ backward as well as froward! There are distinctions Friend of the Bride Groom and Bride... least in the kingdom greater than the greatest man born of woman etc. but certainly position and placement by God is exactly the desire of each heart regenerated for eternity "I must decrease and Christ must increase" Love, Steven

[mizzdy]

You don't believe in a PA? My understanding of a PA is just Israel's right (or the conditions under which) they can actually live in the land given to them. I've honestly never met a messianic who doesn't believe in a PA.

I certainly believe that Gods promise to Abraham, to Judah and to Israel that they would be brought back to their land, His land, not Palestine, it was never called that and to call it the 'palestinian covenant' is unbiblical period. I really dont care if rabbinical Judaism decided to call it Palestine when they were demanding to return to the land or that millions still think the land is 'Palestine' nor a 'Palestinian covenant' it is not. I know some Messianic Jews who are more 'Judaism' than total belief that Yeshua is indeed YHWH in the flesh who have called it such but most if not all who I know would never call it that. And in reality YHWH's promise of land goes far beyond the borders of what is called Israel today.

shalom,

Mizz

[~candice~]

You don't believe in a PA? My understanding of a PA is just Israel's right (or the conditions under which) they can actually live in the land given to them. I've honestly never met a messianic who doesn't believe in a PA.

I certainly believe that Gods promise to Abraham, to Judah and to Israel that they would be brought back to their land, His land, not Palestine, it was never called that and to call it the 'palestinian covenant' is unbiblical period. I really dont care if rabbinical Judaism decided to call it Palestine when they were demanding to return to the land or that millions still think the land is 'Palestine' nor a 'Palestinian covenant' it is not. I know some Messianic Jews who are more 'Judaism' than total belief that Yeshua is indeed YHWH in the flesh who have called it such but most if not all who I know would never call it that. And in reality YHWH's promise of land goes far beyond the borders of what is called Israel today.

shalom,

Mizz

I'm not calling the land 'Palestine', I'm calling the covenant that. And it's not the Abrahamic Cov renamed either. Slightly confused

[mizzdy]

You don't believe in a PA? My understanding of a PA is just Israel's right (or the conditions under which) they can actually live in the land given to them. I've honestly never met a messianic who doesn't believe in a PA.

I certainly believe that Gods promise to Abraham, to Judah and to Israel that they would be brought back to their land, His land, not Palestine, it was never called that and to call it the 'palestinian covenant' is unbiblical period. I really dont care if rabbinical Judaism decided to call it Palestine when they were demanding to return to the land or that millions still think the land is 'Palestine' nor a 'Palestinian covenant' it is not. I know some Messianic Jews who are more 'Judaism' than total belief that Yeshua is indeed YHWH in the flesh who have called it such but most if not all who I know would never call it that. And in reality YHWH's promise of land goes far beyond the borders of what is called Israel today.

shalom,

Mizz

I'm not calling the land 'Palestine', I'm calling the covenant that. And it's not the Abrahamic Cov renamed either. Slightly confused

Can you show me in scriptures where this covenant is? All I see is Due. 23, 29 and 30 which is stating the same promises plus shownig signs and wonders to the surrounding nations. I see the return of Judah to the land as promised but it was never called the Palestinian covenant how could it have been when there was no Palestine? The promise to return to the land is not a separate covenant but a promise by God to bring them back as the end of the age started to progress. Sure theres all kinds of writings about how the Jews were promised 'Palestine' but that wasn't until just over a few hundred years ago from what I read and even many of the mainstream writers suggest this is just a confirmnation, an 'enlargement' but not a new covenant.

I dont know where the idea of renaming the Abrahamic covenant came in but I wouldnt do that myself, I see a continuation, a building, covenants upon one another, all directed at Israel, some new insights, new promises, taking away of this or that such as the earthly priesthoods. I just do not see a palestinian covenant anywhere written in scriptures, could you point it out to me?

shalom,

Mizz

[Guest shiloh357]

You don't believe in a PA? My understanding of a PA is just Israel's right (or the conditions under which) they can actually live in the land given to them. I've honestly never met a messianic who doesn't believe in a PA.

I certainly believe that Gods promise to Abraham, to Judah and to Israel that they would be brought back to their land, His land, not Palestine, it was never called that and to call it the 'palestinian covenant' is unbiblical period. I really dont care if rabbinical Judaism decided to call it Palestine when they were demanding to return to the land or that millions still think the land is 'Palestine' nor a 'Palestinian covenant' it is not. I know some Messianic Jews who are more 'Judaism' than total belief that Yeshua is indeed YHWH in the flesh who have called it such but most if not all who I know would never call it that. And in reality YHWH's promise of land goes far beyond the borders of what is called Israel today.

shalom,

Mizz

I'm not calling the land 'Palestine', I'm calling the covenant that. And it's not the Abrahamic Cov renamed either. Slightly confused

The term "Palestinian" covenant is a an academic term for the Land promise in Deuteronomy. God sets the terms for possession of he land, but not ownership. Ownership is unconditional an dwas established in Gen. 15. But possession is conditional.

[~candice~]

That is my understanding as well Shiloh. If the land covenant in Genesis (Abrahamic Covenant) were also about possession then God has not kept up His covenant. Israel is not yet fully in possession of the land she owns, though that might not come to fulfilment until the Mill reign.

[Guest AndrewCothran]

1. The "old testament" It is such a strange label for what it is and is really quite inappropriate.
2. The old testament and the old covenant are not synonymous.
3. The change in sacrifices (from animals to Jesus) and the change in priesthood (from Aaronic to Melchizedek), has not "done away" with the entire old testament.
4. The "change" in the covenant does not imply a change in God's nature. The God of the "old testament" is the same as the God in the "new testament", or, God hasn't changed merely because the fulfilment of sacrifices and the role of High Priest has.
5. There is no difference in the value or applicability of scriptures between the old and new testaments.
6. "That's in the old testament, and I am not under the old covenant" is a false appeal.

candice i respect you so dont think i am attacking you but i thought that Christ fulfilled the law and the OT does not really apply to Christians ..