Old Covenant vs New Covenant

[Qnts2]

20 minutes ago, thereselittleflower said:

Qnts2  I have to disagree.  The context in which it is used points to what is meant in that scripture passage, the covenant given through Moses.

This entire chapter of Hebrews 8 is contrasting the Old, Mosaic Covenant with the New Covenant in Christ.

• 4Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who offer the gifts according to the Law; 5who serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, just as Moses was warned by God when he was about to erect the tabernacle; for, “SEE,” He says, “THAT YOU MAKE all things ACCORDING TO THE PATTERN WHICH WAS SHOWN YOU ON THE MOUNTAIN.” 
• 6But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.

 

This is all contrasting the Mosaic Covenant with the New Covenant.   So when the writer says  "Old Covenant" he is pointing back to Moses.

 

We can't strip this out of its context and say it doesn't apply to what the context obviously makes it about -  what is old here, decaying and waxed old, and passing away, ready to disappear is the Old Mosaic covenant.

 

 

 

 

 

In Hebrews, the people being addressed are Jewish people, who had been obligated to the Mosaic covenant, so that is the context. The Mosaic covenant is referred to as the First covenant, and in the verses you quoted the New Covenant is referred to as the Better Covenant. Those are not labels for the covenants, but are relative descriptions. That is my point. Why do we not label the New Covenant as the Better Covenant? Because better is a relative term in comparison to the Mosaic covenant, which did not have better promises. 

I am arguing for not taking it out of context. Labeling the Tenakh as the Old Testament is not an accurate description of the entirety of writing inspired by God before Jesus came. Labeling the Mosaic covenant as the Old Covenant is a relative term in comparison is not the label or name of the covenant given thru Moses at Mt. Sinai.

Using the label of Old takes it out of context. The Mosaic covenant, like the New Covenant was given to a certain set of people as an eternal covenant. The Mosaic covenant was given to Israel for their entires lives and for all generations. The New Covenant was given to a certain set of people for their entire lives, but not for all generations, because the New Covenant is not inherited by linage, but is received by faith alone. The Noachide covenant was given to all descendents of Noah, unless the people receive a different covenant. The rainbow covenant was given to people and all living things, forever.

[thereselittleflower]

1 hour ago, Qnts2 said:

In Hebrews, the people being addressed are Jewish people, who had been obligated to the Mosaic covenant, so that is the context. The Mosaic covenant is referred to as the First covenant, and in the verses you quoted the New Covenant is referred to as the Better Covenant. Those are not labels for the covenants, but are relative descriptions. That is my point. Why do we not label the New Covenant as the Better Covenant? Because better is a relative term in comparison to the Mosaic covenant, which did not have better promises. 

I am arguing for not taking it out of context. Labeling the Tenakh as the Old Testament is not an accurate description of the entirety of writing inspired by God before Jesus came. Labeling the Mosaic covenant as the Old Covenant is a relative term in comparison is not the label or name of the covenant given thru Moses at Mt. Sinai.

Using the label of Old takes it out of context. The Mosaic covenant, like the New Covenant was given to a certain set of people as an eternal covenant. The Mosaic covenant was given to Israel for their entires lives and for all generations. The New Covenant was given to a certain set of people for their entire lives, but not for all generations, because the New Covenant is not inherited by linage, but is received by faith alone. The Noachide covenant was given to all descendents of Noah, unless the people receive a different covenant. The rainbow covenant was given to people and all living things, forever.

And so, that's what the writer of Hebrews is calling the Old Covenant - the Mosaic Covenant relative to the New Covenant we are in today.   I'm not understanding where the disagreement here is.

If using the word "old" takes it out of context, then that would mean the writer of Hebrews took it out of context.  I don't think that's what happened.    Hebrews is specifically referring to the Mosaic Covenant as the Old Covenant compared to the New Covenant today.

We use the label  "Old" because that's what scripture uses to refer to the Mosaic Covenant.

 

 

 

 

[Qnts2]

7 minutes ago, thereselittleflower said:

And so, that's what the writer of Hebrews is calling the Old Covenant - the Mosaic Covenant relative to the New Covenant we are in today.   I'm not understanding where the disagreement here is.

If using the word "old" takes it out of context, then that would mean the writer of Hebrews took it out of context.  I don't think that's what happened.    Hebrews is specifically referring to the Mosaic Covenant as the Old Covenant compared to the New Covenant today.

We use the label  "Old" because that's what scripture uses to refer to the Mosaic Covenant.

 

 

 

 

Your last sentence is exactly my point. It is not called the Old Covenant, except in a discussion as a relative term. Why not call the Rainbow covenant, the older covernant, or the covenant in the garden of Eden as the oldest covenant.   The Mosaic Covenant is never re-labeled as the Old Covenant in scripture. The Old Testament is also an unbiblical name for the scriptures before Jesus. It presents an erroneous teaching and view of scripture. 

You might use the label 'Old' but it is a false label. Just as the Better Covenant is relative, but it is not a label.  

[thereselittleflower]

3 minutes ago, Qnts2 said:

Your last sentence is exactly my point. It is not called the Old Covenant, except in a discussion as a relative term. Why not call the Rainbow covenant, the older covernant, or the covenant in the garden of Eden as the oldest covenant.   The Mosaic Covenant is never re-labeled as the Old Covenant in scripture. The Old Testament is also an unbiblical name for the scriptures before Jesus. It presents an erroneous teaching and view of scripture. 

You might use the label 'Old' but it is a false label. Just as the Better Covenant is relative, but it is not a label.  

Ok   I understand you now.  

 

[Shar]

On ‎1‎/‎10‎/‎2016 at 1:15 PM, Qnts2 said:

If some interpret the meal that way, it is up to them. However, the 4th cup is not the cup of redemption. That is the symbolism of the 3rd cup.

The Passover seder, also called the last supper, follows fairly closely, the standard Jewish celebration. The 4 cups take their symbolism from Exodus 6, as I have quoted, so the 3rd cup is called the cup of redemption. The 3rd cup is the cup which comes immediately after the meal. The 4th cup comes a little bit later and very near the end of the seder.

Luke 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

I was still attending the synagogue for about 6 months after believing in Jesus, and during that time, I attended a communal Passover seder at the synagogue. I had been thru a seder every year, but this time it was very different, as I began to see the symbolism in the seder as pointing to Jesus and used by Jesus during the last supper.

Later, when I met other Jewish believers, I found that they also saw the symbolism. I don't know of any Messianic Jews who interpret it as the 4th cup. This is the first time I have heard of that. You will find that Messianic Jews who present the Passover seder in light of Jesus, see the 3rd cup as the cup of redemption which Jesus drank and said it symbolized his blood.

Just FYI.

I, in error, said 4th.  Did not have my facts before me.  It is the 3rd cup.  Just substitute my reference to 4 as 3.  The argument is not effected.

[Shar]

On ‎1‎/‎10‎/‎2016 at 2:55 PM, thereselittleflower said:

I'm glad to see that this won't be construed as christians engaging in a pagan practice then.

 

 

I did not say that.  I said I would not condemn.  I understand the logic.  I don't agree with it.

[thereselittleflower]

1 minute ago, Shar said:

I did not say that.  I said I would not condemn.  I understand the logic.  I don't agree with it.

How can you not condemn something you think is pagan?    You can't have it both ways.  That would be hypocritical.

 

 

 

[Shar]

1 minute ago, thereselittleflower said:

How can you not condemn something you think is pagan?    You can't have it both ways.  That would be hypocritical.

 

 

 

You still don't read my words.  I said I would not condemn people.  I do personally condemn the practice, as I do not practice it myself, but I don't condemn you.  Big difference.  I am  Not having it both ways. 

In my short time back, I have found in many posts throughout, that if someone does not agree with another, words are thrown back against them personally in attack in some form of condemnation.  This is quite disturbing, as one should not talk to others in such manner, much less a fellow believer.

Some of these conversations pick at minor words or phrases of their posts in an effort to simply be contrary, instead of trying to understand another's point.  I have received replies accusing me of participating in doctrine of demons, deceived, Judaizer, false doctrine, liar, etc.   I wonder with those types of responses, if we are grieving our Father in Heaven.  I believe this is not productive and particularly concerning when we may have guests who are searching.  Are we showing true love in Christ for one another?  Shalom and Goodbye

[thereselittleflower]

1 hour ago, Shar said:

You still don't read my words.  I said I would not condemn people.  I do personally condemn the practice, as I do not practice it myself, but I don't condemn you.  Big difference.  I am  Not having it both ways. 

In my short time back, I have found in many posts throughout, that if someone does not agree with another, words are thrown back against them personally in attack in some form of condemnation.  This is quite disturbing, as one should not talk to others in such manner, much less a fellow believer.

Some of these conversations pick at minor words or phrases of their posts in an effort to simply be contrary, instead of trying to understand another's point.  I have received replies accusing me of participating in doctrine of demons, deceived, Judaizer, false doctrine, liar, etc.   I wonder with those types of responses, if we are grieving our Father in Heaven.  I believe this is not productive and particularly concerning when we may have guests who are searching.  Are we showing true love in Christ for one another?  Shalom and Goodbye

Shar,  so even though you understand the logic of it, you still believe we are engaging in pagan practice?

I'ms sorry, but this is not making much sense to me.

I don't understand how one can can say Easter is pagan on one hand,  but then  say it's logical for, and be accepting of, christians participating in Easter on the other.

 

[Qnts2]

2 hours ago, thereselittleflower said:

Shar,  so even though you understand the logic of it, you still believe we are engaging in pagan practice?

I'ms sorry, but this is not making much sense to me.

I don't understand how one can can say Easter is pagan on one hand,  but then  say it's logical for, and be accepting of, christians participating in Easter on the other.

 

If I might try an explanation.

I had a dear friend and mentor who was a 5 point Calvinist. I found that this person in general knew more them I did. He did not try to tell me that I must be a Calvinist. But out of my respect for him, I asked him to explain Calvinism to me. I asked him dozens upon dozens of questions, until I understood Calvinism to the point where I could talk about Calvinism with Calvinists and they found no big fault with my understanding. I will say that Calvinism is a very logical system. I then went back to scripture to see if Calvinism fit well. It did fit with a lot of scripture from the logic of Calvinism, but I found various scripture verses which did not fit Calvinism. These verses which I found contrary to Calvinism actually made no real sense in light of Calvinism, so I came to the conclusion that Calvinism is very logical, but not scriptural. So in my view, Calvinism is a major Christian theology, but not all Christian theologies are entirely correct.

In the case of Easter, it is not a biblical name, and the practice is not from scripture, but the basic belief around Easter is in memory of Jesus death, so that is correct. The name, date, and practice is not from scripture. I personally do not celebrate Easter. I celebrate Passover, in light of what Jesus did in His death for sin, for those who believe.