which commandments?

[Guest Colossians]

As far as Zech. 11:10-13 ,,,, This covenant consisted in the fact that God imposed upon the nations of the earth the obligation not to hurt Israel or destroy it, and was one consequence of the favour of Jehovah towards His people.

There is no covenant made with the nations. You are making up stories. There was only one covenant made: that with Israel.

All covenants must be entered into by both parties aggreeingly. The nations of the world had no covenant with God. All covenants must be in writing.

The covenant broken at the cross was broken by virtue of His death. As such, the breaking of the covenant is connected to His death, and that connection is the party in the covenant which crucified Him.

"Therefore, let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom YE have crucified, both Lord and Christ".

Zech 11:10-13 is direct and clear, and corresponds to Rom 6:14's "Ye are not under the law", and Heb 7:18's "For there is verily a disannullment of the commandment going before for the weekness and unpropfitableness thereof".

Edited November 25, 2004 by Colossians

[Guest shiloh357]

As far as Zech. 11:10-13 ,,,, This covenant consisted in the fact that God imposed upon the nations of the earth the obligation not to hurt Israel or destroy it, and was one consequence of the favour of Jehovah towards His people.

There is no covenant made with the nations. You are making up stories. There was only one covenant made: that with Israel.

All covenants must be entered into by both parties aggreeingly. The nations of the world had no covenant with God. All covenants must be in writing.

The covenant broken at the cross was broken by virtue of His death. As such, the breaking of the covenant is connected to His death, and that connection is the party in the covenant which crucified Him.

"Therefore, let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom YE have crucified, both Lord and Christ".

Zech 11:10-13 is direct and clear, and corresponds to Rom 6:14's "Ye are not under the law", and Heb 7:18's "For there is verily a disannullment of the commandment going before for the weekness and unpropfitableness thereof".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry, but the Hebrew does not support your idea. You should take a class on biblical interpretation. You are batting zero right now.

There was no covenant broken at the cross. The covenant was renewed at the cross. It is the Brit Chadashah. The cross marks the establisment and renewal of the Covenant. The New Covenant is just the Old covenant, modified; hence, the term "B'rit Chadashah in Jer. 31:31.

[nebula]

Zech 11:10-13 is direct and clear,

Zechariah 11:10

And I took my staff, Beauty, and cut it in two, that I might break the covenant which I had made with all the peoples.

Again I will ask you - which Bible version are you using?

Can you show me anywhere that "the peoples" was a term to reference the Jews?

I have only seen it used as reference to the peoples of the earth - that is, the other nations.

[Guest Colossians]

Nonsense. The veil is blindness, ingnorance and hardness of heart. When Paul preached, he preached from the Old Testament.

He preached the New Testament hidden under the old Testament, and that is what we now have written. You are mistaking the typography, for the semantics.

The New Testament illuminates the Old Testament. It does not supercede or do away with the Old Testament.

You contradict yourself: 'new' and 'old' are logically disjunctive. 'New' by definition, supercedes 'old'. Again you are confusing what is written, with the message hidden within.

Christ fulfilled all prophecy:

Nope, there are plenty of end-time prophecies yet to be fulfilled. Especially those related to the second coming.

You don't understand what it means to fulfill. To fulfill means to satisfy and to fill up. Accordingly, Christ said He is Himself the resurrection.

Christ said He had come to fulfill the prophets. The default understanding of this is all the prophets. Either He lied, failed, or succeeded.

So let me ask you a couple of questions to see whether you really know as much as you think:

The prophecy of Jeremiah that in Rama Rachel would weep for her children:

1. Tell us why this is so given that Judea was of not Rachel's progeny, but Leah's?

(Why doesn't it say "Leah weeping for her children"?).

Here's another couple:

2. What was the symbolism in the death of Rachel when giving birth to Benjamin?

3. Why is it Jacob chose to be buried with Leah and not Rachel?

Edited November 25, 2004 by Colossians

[Guest Colossians]

Can you show me anywhere that "the peoples" was a term to reference the Jews?

Just show me where there was a covenant made with anyone else. I'm all ears.

(Show me from either the new or old testament.)

Also show us why it is that the covenant would be broken via His death, if it was in reference to a mysterious covenant protecting the Jews?

The fact is, the covenant was broken, and all covenants must be in writing.

Guess which one that was...

Edited November 25, 2004 by Colossians

[Guest Colossians]

The New Covenant is just the Old covenant, modified

So "not according to the old covenant", means "modified old covenant".

Eh....right...

Rather, "there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before"

Do you understand "disannull"?

[Guest shiloh357]

Nonsense. The veil is blindness, ingnorance and hardness of heart. When Paul preached, he preached from the Old Testament.

He preached the New Testament hidden under the old Testament, and that is what we now have written. You are mistaking the typography, for the semantics.

Maybe you need to read your Bible more and talk about it less.

2Co 3:14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same veil untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which veil is done away in Christ.

2Co 3:15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart.

2Co 3:16 Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away.

The OT is not the veil. The veil is what is over their hearts when reading the OT. The OT is not the agent causing the blindness. It is when the veil is taken off their hearts upon salvation, that they can read the OT with spiritual eyes able to see what was being said.

The New Testament illuminates the Old Testament. It does not supercede or do away with the Old Testament.

You contradict yourself: 'new' and 'old' are logically disjunctive. 'New' by definition, supercedes 'old'. Again you are confusing what is written, with the message hidden within.

No, because the word for new in Hebrew relative to THIS coventant, is "Chadashah." It means renewed The word picture associated with it is the resharpening of the dull blade of a sword.

The Old Covenant was "renewed" or "modified" at the cross. It was not abolished. Jeremiah points to this. He points to renewal of the Covenant, not an abroagation.

When Jesus took the wine and blessed it and said that it was symbolic of the blood of the New Covenant, you can check both the Hebrew and Aramaic equivalents, and he used the term "B'rit Chadahsah." The New Covenant is not "new" in the aboslute sense.

You don't understand what it means to fulfill. To fulfill means to satisfy and to fill up. Accordingly, Christ said He is Himself the resurrection.

Christ said He had come to fulfill the prophets.

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

The Greek word for fulfill is pleroo and means to fill full. It means the opposite of abolish, in both English and in Greek grammar. "I am not come to destroy, BUT to fulfill." The terms destroy and fulfill are used as opposites.

What is the opposite of destroy? To build, establish, uphold. That is how fulfill is used in this verse. To fulfill the Torah and prophets, means to reveal the full depth of meaning that it was intended to hold.

Paul likewise is in complete agreement with Jesus:

Rom 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

So let me ask you a couple of questions to see whether you really know as much as you think:

The prophecy of Jeremiah that in Rama Rachel would weep for her children:

1. Tell us why this is so given that Judea was of not Rachel's progeny, but Leah's?

(Why doesn't it say "Leah weeping for her children"?).

Because Ramah is in the Tribal allotment of Benjamin, not Judea, and Benjamin was the hindermost son of Rachel.

Here's another couple:

2. What was the symbolism in the death of Rachel when giving birth to Benjamin?

3. Why is it Jacob chose to be buried with Leah and not Rachel?

See, the difference here is that I don't go looking for symbolism that is not inferred by Scripture. People run around and apply symbolism where the Bible does not explicity denote that symbolism is applied.

It reminds me of people who try to make the five stones that David put in his shephard's bag, mean something. They try to arbitrarily apply symbolism to things that are not meant to carry in symbolism. It is called allegory, and is an reliable method of Scripture interpretation.

You perhaps have applied allegorical symbolism to these things, and I would be happy to see the symbols you think are there.

[nebula]

Can you show me anywhere that "the peoples" was a term to reference the Jews?

Just show me where there was a covenant made with anyone else. I'm all ears.

(Show me from either the new or old testament.)

Also show us why it is that the covenant would be broken via His death, if it was in reference to a mysterious covenant protecting the Jews?

The fact is, the covenant was broken, and all covenants must be in writing.

Guess which one that was...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

OK -

So I decide to look up this word "peoples" myself, and find the word used is `am.

Here is how `am is used elsewhere in Zechariah.

`am <<-- LINK

OK - so this term actually could apply to the children of Israel.

But check the other references (in the link)!

Did you notice this passage in Zechariah 13?

7 "Awake, O sword, against My Shepherd,

Against the Man who is My Companion,"

Says the LORD of hosts.

"Strike the Shepherd,

And the sheep will be scattered;

Then I will turn My hand against the little ones.

8And it shall come to pass in all the land,"

Says the LORD,

"That two-thirds in it shall be cut off and die,

But one-third shall be left in it:

9I will bring the one-third through the fire,

Will refine them as silver is refined,

And test them as gold is tested.

They will call on My name,

And I will answer them.

I will say, "This is My people';

And each one will say, "The LORD is my God."'

Where your argument fails is that your claim is that God is done with Israel.

The truth is - He is not!

Even Revelation mentions the tribes of Israel being sealed.

Paul himself in Romans affirms that the Lord never abandoned the Jews.

Why have you ignored these Scriptures?

There is a balance, you know.

Romans 11

1 I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel, saying, 3"LORD, they have killed Your prophets and torn down Your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life"? 4But what does the divine response say to him? "I have reserved for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal." 5Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace. 6And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.

7What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded. 8Just as it is written:

[borntorebel]

horizoneast says,

Ron, it wasn’t a “knee jerk response”. I know exactly what was being said. And I hardly think you are in any position to lecture anyone on divisiveness. Your posts speak for themselves.

Yes they do speak for themsleves. I haven't degraded anyone's personal relationship with Christ like you and others on here have done with me. If the truths of God cause you to be angry and divisive, that's your problem. I'm not angry or divided because of anything you and others have said regarding scripture on this MB.

horizoneast says,

If you are referring to the silly “eternity”, “Aion”,"world” theology of L Ray Smith, I am not interested. He's a dead-ender. You should find a new guru.

So, you know of L. Ray Smith. Have we debated before? You sound like every person who doesn't have the ability or spiritual understanding to see God's truth, attacking people and making libelous statements you can't back up with scripture. That's ok, for just as God loves you, so do I.

May God's grace, power and peace be with you,

Ron

[Guest Colossians]

The OT is not the veil. The veil is what is over their hearts when reading the OT.

And the veil was that which stopped them seeing the NT.

There is only one testament that is valid: that which entails the death of the Testator.

Once that Testament is in force, the old is redundant.