Old Covenant vs New Covenant

[thereselittleflower]

     

10 minutes ago, Qnts2 said:

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.

I understand what you said above Qnts2.   But I don't understand Shar's statement in light of the fact she still believes it is a pagan celebration.

Something cannot be both pagan and Christian at the same time.  It is one or the other.     This is very different than comparing different theologies of christianity.  

From what Shar has said,

Quote

 I do personally condemn the practice

 it looks like to me Shar is saying that she condemns a christian celebration as actually pagan, even if she won't condemn the people (no one should ever condemn anyone ever anyway - that's God's domain, not ours to begin with, so saying one won't condemn people is meaningless unless they think they can usurp Gods place in judgment of the souls of others).

So to me this makes absolutely no sense and I am left scratching my head.

 

 

 

 

[Qnts2]

5 minutes ago, thereselittleflower said:

     

I understand what you said above Qnts2.   But I don't understand Shar's statement in light of the fact she still believes it is a pagan celebration.

Something cannot be both pagan and Christian at the same time.  It is one or the other.     This is very different than comparing different theologies of christianity.  

From what Shar has said,

 it looks like to me Shar is saying that she condemns a christian celebration as actually pagan, even if she won't condemn the people (no one should ever condemn anyone ever anyway - that's God's domain, not ours to begin with, so saying one won't condemn people is meaningless unless they think they can usurp Gods place in judgment of the souls of others).

So to me this makes absolutely no sense and I am left scratching my head.

 

 

 

 

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.

[Ezra]

8 hours ago, Qnts2 said:

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

Did you not bother to read this passage and did you not note the connection between Moses and the Old Testament (Covenant):  But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. (2 Cor 3:14,15).

So let me show you that you are mistaken, and I trust there will be no further doubt cast upon that term. God specifically calls the Mosaic Covenant *the Old Covenant* otherwise what would be the point of *the New Covenant* also known as *the New Testament*

Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550
ἀλλ' ἐπωρώθη τὰ νοήματα αὐτῶν ἄχρι γὰρ τῆς σήμερον τὸ αὐτὸ κάλυμμα ἐπὶ τῇ ἀναγνώσει τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης μένει μὴ ἀνακαλυπτόμενον ὅ τι ἐν Χριστῷ καταργεῖται·

New International Version
But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away.

English Standard Version
But their minds were hardened. For to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away.

New American Standard Bible 
But their minds were hardened; for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ.

American Standard Version
but their minds were hardened: for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remaineth, it not being revealed to them that it is done away in Christ.

[Qnts2]

20 minutes ago, Ezra said:

Did you not bother to read this passage and did you not note the connection between Moses and the Old Testament (Covenant):  But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. (2 Cor 3:14,15).

So let me show you that you are mistaken, and I trust there will be no further doubt cast upon that term. God specifically calls the Mosaic Covenant *the Old Covenant* otherwise what would be the point of *the New Covenant* also known as *the New Testament*

Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550
ἀλλ' ἐπωρώθη τὰ νοήματα αὐτῶν ἄχρι γὰρ τῆς σήμερον τὸ αὐτὸ κάλυμμα ἐπὶ τῇ ἀναγνώσει τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης μένει μὴ ἀνακαλυπτόμενον ὅ τι ἐν Χριστῷ καταργεῖται·

New International Version
But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away.

English Standard Version
But their minds were hardened. For to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away.

New American Standard Bible 
But their minds were hardened; for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ.

American Standard Version
but their minds were hardened: for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remaineth, it not being revealed to them that it is done away in Christ.

Again, that is a comparative statement, in context. God did not rename the Mosaic covenant, the old covenant.

In the NT, Jewish believers were talking to Gentiles. Gentiles were hearing what the New Covenant from Jewish people, who were explaining that Gentiles who believed were under the New Covenant, not the old covenant which was a description of the Mosaic covenant but not the label or a new name for the Mosaic covenant. The Gentiles who were now in contact with Jewish people including unsaved Jewish people, needed to understand the status of the Jewish people.  

As far as the word Testament, that is a translation and given modern English, a confusing translation . The Mosaic covenant is not the same as the Mosaic Testament. Actually, there is no such thing as the Mosaic Testament. There is the 5 books of Moses, or the Torah. The translation causes a confusion of words. In Christianity, when the Tenakh is called the Old Testament, Old Testament refers to the canonized scripture written before Jesus physically walked the earth. The old covenant is in comparison to the New Covenant but not the name of the Mosaic covenant and not the same meaning as the modern term, Old Testament.

All of scripture is inspired by God and is good for doctrine, learning etc. God did not divide the OT from the NT, and say the Old is useless and passing away. The Mosaic covenant is older and will be passing away but not the scripture called the Tenakh or the OT.

As far as having passed away, that includes the covenant in Eden. And if a Gentile becomes a believer for the Gentile, the Noachide covenant of laws is the Old Covenant. Gentiles who came from pagan religions had violated the Noachide covenant and were unaware of it. Being taught be Jewish believers, they were more aware of the Mosaic covenant and some were learning that they were no obligated to the Mosaic covenant since they were fully a member of the New Covenant. It is a relational statement. 

[thereselittleflower]

1 hour ago, 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.

Right, pagan involves the intent or the heart of the person involved.  If the person's intent is to worship Jesus, then it can't be pagan by definition and their actions could not be rightly condemned either for their actions are those of worshiping Jesus.  To condemn the celebration of Easter means one is in fact judging the intents of the heart because one is judging the actions that result from the intents of the heart, and so, by direct inference, judging the person, and by direct inference, judging what is in their heart to be of pagan intent.

The practice can't be pagan if the intent of the heart is not pagan.

I don't see how one can, in such a situation, separate the two artificially.  

Worship is of the heart.  The outward practices are the result of what is in the heart.   If one judges, on outward appearances, that the outward practices are pagan, then they are, in essence, judging the intents of the heart whether they realize it or not or are willing to acknowledge it or not.   You can't, in such a circumstance, have one without the other.

 

 

[Qnts2]

8 hours ago, thereselittleflower said:

Right, pagan involves the intent or the heart of the person involved.  If the person's intent is to worship Jesus, then it can't be pagan by definition and their actions could not be rightly condemned either for their actions are those of worshiping Jesus.  To condemn the celebration of Easter means one is in fact judging the intents of the heart because one is judging the actions that result from the intents of the heart, and so, by direct inference, judging the person, and by direct inference, judging what is in their heart to be of pagan intent.

The practice can't be pagan if the intent of the heart is not pagan.

I don't see how one can, in such a situation, separate the two artificially.  

Worship is of the heart.  The outward practices are the result of what is in the heart.   If one judges, on outward appearances, that the outward practices are pagan, then they are, in essence, judging the intents of the heart whether they realize it or not or are willing to acknowledge it or not.   You can't, in such a circumstance, have one without the other.

 

 

While I do not believe Easter is pagan, based on the New Covenant, if we were under the Mosaic covenant, Easter would be a violation of the Mosaic covenant. The Mosaic law specifies when and how to celebrate Passover. Under the Mosaic covenant, you can not change the name, the date, or how to celebrate without having changed the law, which is a very serious violation.

Judging by the letter of the law, Easter is a grievous violation. So, it is very possible to find fault with Easter, but not fault the people who celebrate Easter for the right reasons and motivation. 

Christian to Christian, it is not only allowed but required to judge teachings and prophesy. Easter is a teaching. Easter is taught as a strongly encouraged practice. This makes Christianity interesting. Pastors and Priests, who both teach, what they say is to be judged based on scripture. That makes for lively discussions on forums like this one.

 

 

[other one]

Part of the instructions before the Israelite's went into the promise land was to not learn the pagan ways of the people there and use those ways to worship him......     and that is what the easter bunny, eggs and such is all about. And, no we should not be doing them at all.

[thereselittleflower]

2 hours ago, Qnts2 said:

While I do not believe Easter is pagan, based on the New Covenant, if we were under the Mosaic covenant, Easter would be a violation of the Mosaic covenant. The Mosaic law specifies when and how to celebrate Passover. Under the Mosaic covenant, you can not change the name, the date, or how to celebrate without having changed the law, which is a very serious violation.

Judging by the letter of the law, Easter is a grievous violation. So, it is very possible to find fault with Easter, but not fault the people who celebrate Easter for the right reasons and motivation. 

Christian to Christian, it is not only allowed but required to judge teachings and prophesy. Easter is a teaching. Easter is taught as a strongly encouraged practice. This makes Christianity interesting. Pastors and Priests, who both teach, what they say is to be judged based on scripture. That makes for lively discussions on forums like this one.

 

 

Not accepting it because it is a celebration instead of Passover would be something very different than accusing it of being pagan.  

[thereselittleflower]

52 minutes ago, other one said:

Part of the instructions before the Israelite's went into the promise land was to not learn the pagan ways of the people there and use those ways to worship him......     and that is what the easter bunny, eggs and such is all about. And, no we should not be doing them at all.

Then you would have to get rid of the wedding ring, the cross, the fish symbol, prayer, etc, etc, etc.

Just because pagans used something doesn't make it forbidden to Christians or you would have to toss pretty much everything Christians use, out.

 

[other one]

26 minutes ago, thereselittleflower said:

Then you would have to get rid of the wedding ring, the cross, the fish symbol, prayer, etc, etc, etc.

Just because pagans used something doesn't make it forbidden to Christians or you would have to toss pretty much everything Christians use, out.

 

Pertaining to worshiping God.....   yes that a pretty good assessment, flower.  Not so sure what the wedding ring has to worshiping God, but is something to think about.   prayer we've been given instruction on so it would not count, but the symbols I would have to think about.

But we should be using none of them to worship our Lord or His Father.