Old Covenant vs New Covenant

[Shar]

On ‎1‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 4:48 PM, thereselittleflower said:

On ‎1‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 10:09 PM, Qnts2 said:

When speaking about the first covenant, or the preeminent covenant, it was the first covenant with the children of Israel, and the pre-eminent covenant as far as Israel was concerned. It is not the first covenant mentioned in scripture. The Oldest Covenant was actually the one between God and Adam in the garden which is no longer in effect. 

The term Old Covenant seems off, but the term first covenant to Israel/Hebrews is accurate.

So, I do believe that a discussion about the Old Covenant vs. the New Covenant, it is valid to explore the term Old Covenant.

While the Mosaic Covenant was given to Israel, the Noachide Covenant was given to all descendents of Noah, so for Gentiles, can it be said that when a Gentile accepts the New Covenant, their Old Covenant is the Noachide covenant?

Ok   I understand you now.  

 

I have never liked the term "Old Testament" for the first 66 books of the Bible that comprise over 60% of the Bible.  When Jesus and all the disciples referenced the word "Scriptures", they were only speaking of it.  What do you believe is the correct term for it?  I hear Jewish believers call it "The Tanakh" (for the Law, Prophets and Writings).  Is there a better term to call it?  I believe, as I have witnessed in many Christian denominations throughout my life, that the term "Old" have brought a concentration of study to the New Testament while ignoring or invalidating the Old Testament.  I believe this designation may greatly contribute to this.

[Shar]

On ‎1‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 2:55 PM, Qnts2 said:

On ‎1‎/‎12‎/‎2016 at 1:51 PM, thereselittleflower said:

Why not?

Jewish worship included all sorts of symbols and images.  Look at the Ark, its tabernacle and the images all over it..   Look at the Ark itself.   Arks were in use by pagans long before God told Moses to build an Ark.  Arks were common in kingdoms.   

Yet God took the use of the ark which was pagan in origin, and told Moses to create one.  God took what was pagan and converted it to holy use.   This is the example we are given by God Himself in scripture.   

There is nothing wrong with taking what was once devoted to pagan use, and converting it and devoting it to holy use in worship of God.    If there was, then there would have never been an Ark of the Old Covenant.

 

 

Old Covenant is not the designation in scripture for the Mosaic covenant. The term old covenant in all mentions is a relative term.

In 2 Cor 3, the words are written to Gentiles. The differences are compared, and an emphasis is on Jesus, the Messiah, and how different the New Covenant is from the Mosaic covenant. Gentiles were never under the Mosaic covenant, but were brought into the New Covenant. 

In Hebrews, the words are addressed to Jewish people, who had the 'first' covenant, and now had the second/New Covenant.

Throughout the gospels and into the epistles, what is now called the Old Testament was not referred to using that terminology. What is called the OT today, was actually three books, the books of Moses (Torah), the Prophets (Neviim) and the Ketuvim (writings such as Psalms).

2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:  

So, there is no real division of scripture. The NT could not exist without the OT, but the OT stood alone until the time of Jesus. Jesus is spoken of in prophesy throughout the OT. All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable. The term Old Testament has given the message that it is old and less usefull, but scripture itself disagrees. 

Old Covenant is used in a doctrinal way to explain the New Covenant or an explanation to Gentiles concerning the differences, not a label. Old Testament is a designation not used in reference to the books of Moses, Prophets and Writings, which is inaccurate and caused a lower view of scripture inspired by God.  

You are not getting the logic behind their arguments.   Just like it has been said many, many times before, what pagans used in common with other cultures was not unique to the culture of pagans.  Like the ring example.  However, God does not want his people to do anything that is associated with pagan worship.  History clearly shows that the modern day practices of Easter, the bunnies, eggs, the actual day it is celebrated, etc., were born out of the pagan worship of the fertility goddess.  I don't want to be associated with that.  My point being, why even want to substitute the biblical Feast of Passover, Unleavened Bread, and First Fruits, for Easter in the Church?  The church history clearly bore this substitution out of anti-Semitism and the mandate to separate from anything deemed Jewish.

Just because, over time, this was accepted and now widely practiced does not mean it is the best expression of his death, burial and resurrection.  You can actually not approve of a practice, and still approve of your brethren, who choose to believe differently.

Edited January 15, 2016 by Shar

[Shar]

On ‎1‎/‎12‎/‎2016 at 11:11 PM, Qnts2 said:

Condemn has differing applications. In a court of law, the court could condemn a person to death, but, when that person is sentenced to death, they might have accepted Jesus in the interim. God does not condemn the person, but the legal court system has according to the law. A person can sin, and be forgiven by God, but still face the penalty of that sin on earth, but in heaven, they are not condemned and sent to hell.

If someone believes a practice is pagan, they would condemn the practice, but not the person involved. I do not believe Easter is pagan, but pagan involves the intent or heart of the person involved.

Thank you, Q.  My point too, beautifully associated with the legal system.  My course of study, interest and practice throughout most my life.  I should have thought of using that analogy. 

[Shar]

On ‎1‎/‎13‎/‎2016 at 6:24 PM, thereselittleflower said:

Unfortunately, it is very sad to see myths and lies like this promoted in this forum.  For it is, indeed, a lie, nothing more than an oft-repeated myth.    

She is never to be treated as a goddess.    

Catholics are not taught to treat her as a goddess.

  Please stop spreading these lies and myths, it is unbecoming of one who names the name of Christ to falsely accuse others like this.

Why are prayers offered to her? - (a form of worship);   Why ask her to pray for you? (only ONE mediator between God and man, Jesus who intercedes in the heavenly temple); why lift her up on pedestals and carry her through the streets on special Catholic celebrations? ( a form of worship);  why referred to her as "The Queen of Heaven" (a known pagan reference to a Babylonian goddess)?

So, there is some legitimate cause for some on this forum to see her as a goddess or substitution for the role only Jesus as our Savior and Great High Priest distinctively holds in the Heavenly Temple and at the right hand of our Father.

I know this belongs on another forum, and that forum got shut down for discussions becoming ugly, so I DON"T wish a reply to further it's discussion, in honor to keep that discussion closed.  I am just asking, please look at why they would think that based on practices.  If you look at that, then you can understand where they are coming from, whether you agree with it or not.  This is not a condemnation of Catholics, especially those of our brethren who believe in the sin atoning sacrifice of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

[thereselittleflower]

4 hours ago, Shar said:

I have never liked the term "Old Testament" for the first 66 books of the Bible that comprise over 60% of the Bible.  When Jesus and all the disciples referenced the word "Scriptures", they were only speaking of it.  What do you believe is the correct term for it?  I hear Jewish believers call it "The Tanakh" (for the Law, Prophets and Writings).  Is there a better term to call it?  I believe, as I have witnessed in many Christian denominations throughout my life, that the term "Old" have brought a concentration of study to the New Testament while ignoring or invalidating the Old Testament.  I believe this designation may greatly contribute to this.

I'm fine with calling it the Old Testament.

 

[thereselittleflower]

2 hours ago, Davida said:

Unfortunately what is very sad is continuing to ignore what the Bible says about this & what everyone so patiently tries to explain to you.  Tlf continue to argue and tell everyone else that THEY are wrong and spreading "lies" &  "myths" when the opposite is the true - it is you who does that.  It is simple even a child can understand, the praying to Mary or honoring any one else as Holy is an abomination unto God, as it is written in the Word of God. This is why this topic keeps coming up , because you keep defending & selling the worshipping of Mary & Catholic "saints" as acceptable and it is not, no matter how many times you say it and it will never will be. Your very avatar & handle shows where your heart is and it is not submitted unto God, or the Lord Jesus Christ because you dismiss HIS place at the right hand of God & put Mary there or some other catholic saint instead. Therese the little flower was a catholic saint, so every time you post you are showing where your real devotion is and where you truly place your faith &  trust.  

I think it would be obvious on its face I and others would know better than someone looking from the outside in if Mary is treated as a goddess or not.   I think it would be obvious on its face I would know better than someone else from the outside looking in,  what the intents of my heart are.    

 My Avatar is from a painting of  one of the 10 virgins in Jesus' parable.   So I truly do hope it shows where my heart is.    When I chose it, I did not expect it to reveal the hearts of others like this.

 Only Jesus sits at the right had of God Davida.   How anyone could presume to know, and pass judgment over, me or any one else with lies such as "you dismiss HIS place at the right had of God & put Mary there or some other catholic saint instead" is beyond my comprehension.    When one lifts their judgments about others up on such a pedestal, it is not true charity that is revealed. 

Again, I am begging you, for the sake of your own soul,   PLEASE stop spreading these lies and myths, it is unbecoming of one who names the name of Christ to falsely accuse others like this.

 

[thereselittleflower]

52 minutes ago, Davida said:

Please stop accusing me of judging you thereseLf -  I have never called you a "sinner" or a heretic etc.  I have only just been telling you what the Bible says about the worship or praying to mary and you don't like that, understandably so.   But I think we owe it to you to tell you the truth that is in the Bible. As often as you try to justify this false worship of Mary,  someone is likely going to be called to refute it. The fact that you won't even consider what the Bible says about this being wrong is what makes it so very, very  sad. We can't serve two masters and we can't put anyone in the Holy place of the Lord Jesus Christ as our intercessor.  Mary was blessed to be Jesus earthly mother , but she simply can not intercede for us, or comfort us, or answer prayers or influence Jesus, nor can any of the Catholic saints.  If this were true and was what God wanted us to do , He would have surely have clearly told us to do that --but HE didn't, in fact He told us quite the opposite.  The Lord Jesus told His disciples that when He returned to heaven, GOD would send the Comforter, the HOLY SPIRIT to be with us and that He would hear us from heaven & is our Heavenly High Priest and our intercessor. What we would ask in His name HE would grant.    So we should conclude by this that any prayers or devotions to anyone living or dead is the ungodly myth , another lie that Satan has concocted because he likes to mislead and deceive people and steal the worship and adoration meant only for the Lord Christ Jesus.  I imagine if anyone thinks their prayers have been answered,  it was not the GOD of heaven that did the answering and that is very concerning issue all by itself.   

Having read quite a bit about other religions it is interesting & I'm sure no coincidence that Quan Yin,  Catholic Mary, the Queen of Heaven, and Goddess paintings all look very similar.

Matthew 6:24 " No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other."

Davida -  you have your opinions, and I disagree with you, including whether or not you have judged me, especially with comments such as these:

Quote

because you dismiss HIS place at the right hand of God & [you] put Mary there or some other catholic saint instead. 

Quote

. Your very avatar & handle shows where your heart is and it is not submitted unto God,

Those are in fact statements of judgment, and because they are issues of the heart, they are judgments over my heart.   So you have indeed judged me.

You are not God Davida.    Only God can judge the heart.    Only God's judgments matter.

And your judgments of my heart are false.

I am simply pointing out what you are doing so you can stop because it is in your best interests to stop and I am concerned for your soul.   I do not think God takes kindly to anyone usurping His position as judge, and judging the hearts of others or bearing false witness against their neighbor.

 

Please, again, I beg you, in Christ's name to stop.

 

 

[thereselittleflower]

5 hours ago, Shar said:

Why are prayers offered to her? - (a form of worship);   Why ask her to pray for you? (only ONE mediator between God and man, Jesus who intercedes in the heavenly temple); why lift her up on pedestals and carry her through the streets on special Catholic celebrations? ( a form of worship);  why referred to her as "The Queen of Heaven" (a known pagan reference to a Babylonian goddess)?

So, there is some legitimate cause for some on this forum to see her as a goddess or substitution for the role only Jesus as our Savior and Great High Priest distinctively holds in the Heavenly Temple and at the right hand of our Father.

I know this belongs on another forum, and that forum got shut down for discussions becoming ugly, so I DON"T wish a reply to further it's discussion, in honor to keep that discussion closed.  I am just asking, please look at why they would think that based on practices.  If you look at that, then you can understand where they are coming from, whether you agree with it or not.  This is not a condemnation of Catholics, especially those of our brethren who believe in the sin atoning sacrifice of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Well, I've tried to have this conversation before, but it is usually summarily dismissed.

Prayers to Mary or the Saints are not a form of worship.    The word "pray" has two senses and uses in scripture -  that of an act of worship to God, an that of an act of making a request to others.    You've restricted the word pray to the first use.   Catholics haven't and so we use the word "pray" in a different way than you do.

I disagree that there is any legitimate reason to see her as a goddess or a substitution for the role only Jesus  holds.    Those who refuse to have their misunderstandings corrected regarding what another group means by the words they use and their actions cannot justly hide behind a cloak of legitimacy and pretend they were never corrected.

 

 

[Spock]

12 hours ago, Shar said:

Why are prayers offered to her? - (a form of worship);   Why ask her to pray for you? (only ONE mediator between God and man, Jesus who intercedes in the heavenly temple); why lift her up on pedestals and carry her through the streets on special Catholic celebrations? ( a form of worship);  why referred to her as "The Queen of Heaven" (a known pagan reference to a Babylonian goddess)?

So, there is some legitimate cause for some on this forum to see her as a goddess or substitution for the role only Jesus as our Savior and Great High Priest distinctively holds in the Heavenly Temple and at the right hand of our Father.

I know this belongs on another forum, and that forum got shut down for discussions becoming ugly, so I DON"T wish a reply to further it's discussion, in honor to keep that discussion closed.  I am just asking, please look at why they would think that based on practices.  If you look at that, then you can understand where they are coming from, whether you agree with it or not.  This is not a condemnation of Catholics, especially those of our brethren who believe in the sin atoning sacrifice of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Shar, you and Davida got it right.  My catholic family won't give up their prayers to Mary for her intercession and won't throw away their statues in their front yards. They are all in when it comes to that Momma.  I even told my brother, "Fred, why bother praying to Mary....SHE CANT HEAR YOU!!!!!!!!""

i thought my brother was going to punch me out (he's the pugilist, I'm the lover of the family). 

For my brothers sake, I hope God isn't too angry about this.  Perhaps this is why the Catholics practically did away with the second commandment. 

And since this thread is about Old v. new Covenant, I feel very strongly in saying I believe the 2nd commandment is still in effect as written by the hand of Moses. 

A sad Spock 

[SINNERSAVED]

12 hours ago, simplejeff said:

Who wrote the second commandment ? 

About 1,290,000 results

 

Who Wrote the Second Set of the Ten Commandments? Exodus 34 ...

thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/40728

‎

 

And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant - the Ten Commandments. ... 10:1-4, God himself made the second inscription of the Ten Commandments.

Apologetics Press - Who Wrote on the Second Pair of Tablets?

https://www.apologeticspress.org/article/754

‎

 

... Bible teaches in Exodus 34 that Moses wrote on this second pair of tablets, ... And Hewrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments”  ...

Who wrote the Ten Commandments onto the second set of tablets ...

www.errancy.com/who-wrote-the-ten-commandments/

‎

 

Feb 8, 2010 ... In his anger, he broke the tablets on which the commandments were written. God provided a second set, but Exodus appears to contradict itself ...

Ten Commandments - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments

‎

 

After "the LORD came down upon mount Sinai", Moses went up briefly and returned and prepared the people, and then in Exodus 20 "God spoke" to all the people the words of the covenant, "even ten commandments" as it is written.

Please explain Exodus 34:28. Does it mean that Moses wrote the ...

rcg.org/questions/p128.a.html

‎

 

Many have misunderstood this verse, believing that “He wrote” is a reference to Moses. They conclude that Moses must have written the Ten Commandments on  ...

Catholics Remove The 2nd Commandment! - Jesus is Savior

www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/.../2nd_command.htm

‎

 

Catholics Remove The 2nd Commandment! ... The evil men who wrote the preceding Catholic Catechism deceitfully split the 10th commandment into two to  ...

 

 

http://rcg.org/questions/p128.a.html

 

"Exodus 34:28 states, “And he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And He wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.”

Many have misunderstood this verse, believing that “He wrote” is a reference to Moses. They conclude that Moses must have written the Ten Commandments on the stone tablets.

Exodus 24:12 shows that this is an incorrect assumption. There, God instructed Moses, “…Come up to Me into the mount, and be there: and I will give you tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written; that you may teach them.” Also, Exodus 31:18 states that God “…gave unto Moses, when He had made an end of communing with him upon Mt. Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.” "

 

that was a great job on showing this , I never knew this  ,thank you Jeff