Old Covenant vs New Covenant

[Shar]

1 hour ago, thereselittleflower said:

 

The search engines on bible sites have not been turning up results very well lately for me.  

Long, long before there was even an Isaac, Abraham lived in the pagan land of the Chaldeans.  It would be highly assuming to believe that the giving of rings originated with Abraham, rather than Abraham appropriating something pagan from the country he had lived in, and now giving it a holy use.

Where do you think the Jewish people got the rings of gold from?   Did  slaves own rings of gold?    No.    The Egyptians loaded the Hebrews will all sorts of precious items including jewelry.   The rings of gold came from pagans which had been put to pagan use before they ever belonged to the Hebrews.     God took the gold and jewelry that was crafted by pagans for pagans and sanctified it for the making of the Tabernacle.  

Even God does not have the problem you do of appropriating items from pagans and using them for something holy.

 

Just because there are rings in use by the Hebrew people says nothing about the origination of those practices.   You are trying very hard to negate the obvious., but you have not proven rings for special occasions were not of pagan origin.

 

 

 

 

You missed the point that Abraham gave a ring to celebrate a special event.  This was long before the pagans you mentioned did so.  God turned the Egyptians to favor the Jews before their exodus and they gave them these gold items.  If gold rings were only identifiable with this pagan culture, which they were not, He would not have moved the Egyptians to give them.  God would have given another way.  We are done with this post, as it has become tediously repetitive. 

[Qnts2]

13 minutes ago, Shar said:

I did say Paul told us to celebrate the Passover, but make sure we did not have malice in our hearts.  Even Paul supported it, so it is not in error to keep it.  Yes, when you do the Seder it is rich with Biblical understanding and the evidence of Messiah.  My point is not just that the Easter celebration was taken from a pagan celebration, but more that we departed from those 3 Feasts for the remembrance of His death, burial and resurrection because of anti-Semitism.  This is not a justifiable reason to adopt a different ceremony.  Hatred of Jews was the reason of the change.  Not God's command.

I agree with some of what you said, because the separation of Christianity from anything similar to Judaism was intended as a separation from Jewish people.

But, most Christians are not anti-semitic and are not aware that Constantine was anti-semitic, so Easter is no longer anti-semitic as practiced by most Christians.

There was a time in history when passion plays were put on to stir people up and against the Jewish people. During the middle ages, passion plays resulted in attacks against the Jewish people because they presented a very anti-semitic view blaming the Jewish people of murdering Jesus. That does not make all plays which show Jesus death are anti-semitic today, like they used to be. (When Mel Gibson's movie, The Passion came out, the Jewish community was upset as they thought this would be a repeat of the persecution of Jewish people fanned by the anti-semitic rhetoric of passion plays in history.) So, corrupt people can corrupt something of God, including the Passion play. Easter is about Jesus and is not corrupt. Since it is about Jesus, and follows the command to do this in memory of Jesus, it is good, even if it has a different name and date. 

 

[Riverwalker]

53 minutes ago, Reinitin said:

Depends on how you look at the old covenant and the New Covenat. The Promise to Abraham is an older covenant then the covenant with Moses. Our covenant with Christ is the grafting in to the promises to Abraham. So which is truely the old covenant? Christ was promised before the foundations of the earth were made. PI am pretty sure that is older then Moses.

Interesting take

I think when people say "the old covenant" in this context, they are speaking of the LAW of Moses.....which while part of the old covenant does not encompass the old covenant

 

None of the patriarchs from Adam to Jacob to the his descendants that would become a nation in Egypt had the Law of Moses. And Paul makes a great case for the the fact that the Law was given solely as a stop gap measure and yo point out the need for a savior, that was promised 2000 years BEFORE the mosaic law was given, when man first fell into sin

 

So Yes...the Old Covenant, Is the New Covenant....those who believed in the coming messiah are just as saved as those who believe in the Risen Messiah

And the Mosaic Law points to the NEED of that Messiah

 

 

Edited January 10, 2016 by Riverwalker

[Reinitin]

3 minutes ago, Riverwalker said:

Interesting take

I think when people say "the old covenant" in this context, they are speaking of the LAW of Moses.....which while part of the old covenant does not encompass the old covenant

 

None of the patriarchs from Adam to Jacob to the his descendants that would become a nation in Egypt had the Law of Moses. And Paul makes a great case for the the fact that the Law was given solely as a stop gap measure and yo point out the need for a savior, that was promised 2000 years BEFORE the mosaic law was given

 

So Yes...the Old Covenant, Is the New Covenant....those who believed in the coming messiah are just as saved as those who believe in the Risen Messiah

And the Mosaic Law points to the NEED of that Messiah

 

 

Yes, The law was a school master, the law was to protect the inheritance promised. There are lots of scriptures that point out that Mosses Law was a tool to reedem his people and be a witness of the One true living God and his ultimate plan of Christ.

[Shar]

25 minutes ago, Qnts2 said:

I agree with some of what you said, because the separation of Christianity from anything similar to Judaism was intended as a separation from Jewish people.

But, most Christians are not anti-semitic and are not aware that Constantine was anti-semitic, so Easter is no longer anti-semitic as practiced by most Christians.

There was a time in history when passion plays were put on to stir people up and against the Jewish people. During the middle ages, passion plays resulted in attacks against the Jewish people because they presented a very anti-semitic view blaming the Jewish people of murdering Jesus. That does not make all plays which show Jesus death are anti-semitic today, like they used to be. (When Mel Gibson's movie, The Passion came out, the Jewish community was upset as they thought this would be a repeat of the persecution of Jewish people fanned by the anti-semitic rhetoric of passion plays in history.) So, corrupt people can corrupt something of God, including the Passion play. Easter is about Jesus and is not corrupt. Since it is about Jesus, and follows the command to do this in memory of Jesus, it is good, even if it has a different name and date. 

 

Thanks.  I understand your logic.  I personally don't like that Easter was substituted for anti-Semitic reasons, but I would never condemn a brother and sister in the Lord who wishes to keep it today.  I just ask they do the same for those who wish not to acknowledge it as our Lord's death, burial and resurrection.

[Qnts2]

10 minutes ago, Riverwalker said:

Interesting take

I think when people say "the old covenant" in this context, they are speaking of the LAW of Moses.....which while part of the old covenant does not encompass the old covenant

 

None of the patriarchs from Adam to Jacob to the his descendants that would become a nation in Egypt had the Law of Moses. And Paul makes a great case for the the fact that the Law was given solely as a stop gap measure and yo point out the need for a savior, that was promised 2000 years BEFORE the mosaic law was given, when man first fell into sin

 

So Yes...the Old Covenant, Is the New Covenant....those who believed in the coming messiah are just as saved as those who believe in the Risen Messiah

And the Mosaic Law points to the NEED of that Messiah

 

 

While the 'Old' Covenant, or properly, the Mosaic Covenant pointed to Jesus, the Mosaic covenant is not the New Covenant. They are distinctly different.

The Mosaic covenant was given to the children of Israel at Mt. Sinai.

Jeremiah 31:31 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:

³² 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:

So, the Mosaic covenant is the covenant given when God brought the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt, and according to scripture, the New covenant is not like the Mosaic covenant.

The naming of the Old Testament, and New Testament was done around the second century.

A link to Schaffs history of the Christian church, who quote Eusibeus. I believe the terms Old Testament  (Old Covenant are attributed to Melito).

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.ix.xxvi.html

The first reference to the promised Messiah, I believe in in Genesis 3:15, which was before the Mosaic covenant. Pointers to the Messiah started very early after the fall, and continued throughout the OT.

Genesis 3:15 ¹⁵ And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

 

[Qnts2]

8 minutes ago, Shar said:

Thanks.  I understand your logic.  I personally don't like that Easter was substituted for anti-Semitic reasons, but I would never condemn a brother and sister in the Lord who wishes to keep it today.  I just ask they do the same for those who wish not to acknowledge it as our Lord's death, burial and resurrection.

We are in 100% agreement on this.

 

[Reinitin]

36 minutes ago, Shar said:

I did say Paul told us to celebrate the Passover, but make sure we did not have malice in our hearts.  Even Paul supported it, so it is not in error to keep it.  Yes, when you do the Seder it is rich with Biblical understanding and the evidence of Messiah.  My point is not just that the Easter celebration was taken from a pagan celebration, but more that we departed from those 3 Feasts for the remembrance of His death, burial and resurrection because of anti-Semitism.  This is not a justifiable reason to adopt a different ceremony.  Hatred of Jews was the reason of the change.  Not God's command.

The feasts including the passover were given to be a witness to the works of God. Israel is told to keep the feasts as a witness to all generations. If you study the feasts you will get a deeper understanding of Gods faithfulness to His promises. Many of the things Jesus did have been and still are rehersed by Isreal in the feasts. Many of the things Jesus said are referances to the witness of the feasts. You can dicern many false teachings and prophets if you study the feasts. One fun study Is "like a thief in the night" is a referance to a feast, "No man knows the day or the hour" Is a referance to a feast. Another truth you will see if you study the feasts. The annual sabbath put Jesus in the grave 3 full days and 3 full nights, teaching his crusifixion before the weekly sabbath is really bad math.

[Riverwalker]

2 minutes ago, Qnts2 said:

While the 'Old' Covenant, or properly, the Mosaic Covenant pointed to Jesus, the Mosaic covenant is not the New Covenant. They are distinctly different.

The Mosaic covenant was given to the children of Israel at Mt. Sinai.

Jeremiah 31:31 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:

³² 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:

So, the Mosaic covenant is the covenant given when God brought the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt, and according to scripture, the New covenant is not like the Mosaic covenant.

The naming of the Old Testament, and New Testament was done around the second century.

A link to Schaffs history of the Christian church, who quote Eusibeus. I believe the terms Old Testament  (Old Covenant are attributed to Melito).

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.ix.xxvi.html

The first reference to the promised Messiah, I believe in in Genesis 3:15, which was before the Mosaic covenant. Pointers to the Messiah started very early after the fall, and continued throughout the OT.

Genesis 3:15 ¹⁵ And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

 

I think the point being made here.....is that much of what we take as the old covenant including Genesis 3:15 occurred outside (or before) of the realm of the Mosaic covenant.  Every promise and restriction God gave to Adam, Seth, On through Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and to the Israelite's in Egypt was Pre-Mosaic covenant. Including a great many of the Jehovah names

[thereselittleflower]

1 hour ago, 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 have also read that at the time of Jesus there was no 4th cup, that this was introduced to the meal after the diaspora.