pre trib rapture is fake true or false

[Paradigm]

34 minutes ago, WilliamL said:

So the question is, did Jesus fulfill the Law of Moses? Did not the Redemption of the Cross cover the sacrificial price for all time?

 

Yes, Y'shua came to fulfill the Torah. However, not all is fulfilled yet. Not the smallest letter or decoration will pass away from the Torah until heaven and earth pass away and ALL is fulfilled. 

Matthew 5:17-19  Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. ¹⁸ For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. ¹⁹ Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

In light of this, there are two categories mentioned. One group breaks the "least" or smallest commandments and teaches others that is acceptable in contrast to those who keep the commandments and teach likewise. 

The word "fulfill" in Matthew 5:17 does not mean end as is evidenced by the passage. It happens to be the same Greek word that is translated the same way below.

Matthew 3:15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

Y'shua did not allow John to baptize him so that they could "end" all righteousness, but fulfill it. You don't fulfill an agreement such as wedding vows by ending the marriage. 

Also, the lamb was slain from the foundation of the world, although he was manifested in these last days. No one comes to the Father except through the son. Not now, not 4,ooo years ago. 

34 minutes ago, WilliamL said:

Secondly, Jesus himself abrogated the Mosaic Law for divorce "for any reason": Matt. 5:31-32 requires a considerably more restricted rule for divorce than that allowed by Moses in Deut. 24:1-3.

Yes, Y'shua did actually tighten up even stronger on some of the commandments which is how they should have been followed all along. 

34 minutes ago, WilliamL said:

Thirdly, the Law of Moses -- not God's Commandments from Sinai, but the whole Law -- was only required by God to be kept in one specific place on earth, "the land which you cross over to possess" (Deut. 4:14), "the land which the LORD your God is giving you for all time." 4:40 It does not apply for any of us outside of the Holy Land, whether or not it still is in effect there.

Who do you think came up with the Torah? YHVH or Moses?

We do not read "And Moses thought up a particular commandment saying". But rather "And YHVH spoke unto Moses saying."

Yes, the Torah is more than Ten Commandments. Nothing about homosexuality or bestiality is mentioned in the Ten Commandments,. However, they do speak of the Sabbath, not making images to worship, or having anything to do with other gods. 

Yes, there are certain commandments that are specific to the High Priests, the other priests, the king, the Levites, men, women, etc. There are certain commandments that are specific to the land of Israel. If we err, it makes sense that we do so trying to figure out how much we can obey rather than how much we can disobey. 

Even in the case where a physical law may be specific to a certain person or even location such as the tabernacle/temple, they all have a spiritual application. For as Paul said, "For we know that the Torah is spiritual." And again, Do we make void the Torah through faith? God forbid. We establish the Torah. There is but One Faith as it is written and that One Faith establishes the Torah rather than making it void. 

 

Edited April 15, 2016 by Paradigm

[Serving]

6 hours ago, Last Daze said:

While I do agree that the resurrection / rapture happens when the seventh angel sounds, I don't see the seventh trumpet as what Paul was referring to as the "last trumpet".  I say that because Paul also describes the last trumpet as the trumpet of God.

The seventh trumpet heralds the ultimate regime change.  It announces the beginning of the day of the Lord when God takes His great power and begins to reign.  Out with the old (mystery Babylon) and in with the new (the kingdom of God).

At the sound of the seventh trumpet, Jesus descends to the clouds and sounds the last trumpet, the trumpet of God.  A few mysteries are no longer mysteries at that point including the mystery of the kingdom and the mystery of the believers immortality, the mystery of the bride.

Hi Daze,

Though I'd disagree with the mystery part, I do hear where you are coming from .. yet ..

Some scriptures to ponder :

Matthew 24:29-31 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

1 Corinthians 15: 51-52 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

The common denomination I can see is that a trumpet blows BEFORE the resurrection occurs .. Matthew mentions a trumpet sounding directly before the resurrection too, and Matthew calls it a "great sound of a trumpet", yet 1 Thess calls that trump before the resurrection the "trump of God", and 1 Corinth gives that trumpet right before the resurrection two titles .. the "last trump" and plain old "trumpet" ..  so that's 3 different titles (besides trumpet directly above) they gave to the same trumpet as far as I can discern?

And as I examine 1 Corinth to see if I can make your point work, I just can't get past how it says the "last trump" sounds right before the resurrection, which matches the others too.

Nevertheless, if you are proposing that Christ still has some butt kicking to do after the resurrection of the saints, then I would say yes .. He certainly does, no disagreement there .. Zechariah 14 for example confirms that, but one thing is certain .. it still all happens on that LAST DAY .. Zechariah even tell us what time during the day that it all climaxes too .. evening time.

So I'm not totally discarding your line of thought, if I was correct in "thinking your thoughts for you" that is, that there is still some "action" taking place after the 7th trump .. right?

If so, I'd totally agree .. except about the mystery & last trump  of course.

 

[Davidjayjordan]

The last trump IMO is audible, definitely to all of us remaining Christians... the first six are blown by the angels and release the 1/3 plagues upon the antichrist earth. They persecute us, whereas our TWO prophets return to Jerusalem and blast them and send down the Lords six trumpets.

These tewo CHRISTIAN prophets die 3.5 days before the 7th Trump

 

Rev 11

[Serving]

7 hours ago, Paradigm said:

Hi Serving,

Hi Paradigm,

Quote

If you take a look at the word "covenant" in the verse that you quoted, you will see that it is the number 9999. That means it was not there. This form of literary expression is referred to as an ellipses. The KJV translators supplied what they thought the word should be.

We have to examine what the subject matter mainly is that has been discussed. Much of Hebrews including this section is discussing the contrast of the priesthood of Melchizedek with the priesthood of Aaron. In my view, the word "priesthood" would have been the proper ellipses rather than "covenant." Regardless, the word "covenant" simply does not appear in the verse that you site as evidence.

As a rule I don't play the translation game, nevertheless, from my "laymans" perspective, 1) The verse you are questioning is merely REPEATING what was said in verses 6-10 .. with v6,8,9 & 10 using the correct item going by your method, that is, they are not italicized .. you should know this yes? So no, the KJV is spot on because it is merely repeating the same context already in use .. meaning, you still need to reconcile that fact of that COVENANT "waxing old" & "vanishing away" with your interpretation .. which thing speaks out very strongly against your viewpoint.

2) Priesthood would have been a terrible choice Paradigm, just off the top of my head I'll tell you why .. Melchizedek has no beginning and NO END .. so applying "decayeth" & "waxing old" & "vanishing away" to Melchizedek's priesthood, which is personal in implication, would definitely be a mistake .. no, the KJV had it right all along in my discernment.

Quote

If you are correct in your interpretation that the verse means that God's covenant is decaying and waxing old and ready to vanish away, at what point did it end?

As William pointed out, at crucifixion, for the testament is not in effect until the testator dies ..

Besides that obvious one, and others besides .. Right here :

Zechariah 11:9-17

9 Then said I, I will not feed you: that that dieth, let it die; and that that is to be cut off, let it be cut off; and let the rest eat every one the flesh of another.

10 And I took my staff, even Beauty, and cut it asunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the people.

11 And it was broken in that day: and so the poor of the flock that waited upon me knew that it was the word of the LORD.

12 And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver.

13 And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD.

14 Then I cut asunder mine other staff, even Bands, that I might break the brotherhood between Judah and Israel.

15 And the LORD said unto me, Take unto thee yet the instruments of a foolish shepherd.

16 For, lo, I will raise up a shepherd in the land, which shall not visit those that be cut off, neither shall seek the young one, nor heal that that is broken, nor feed that that standeth still: but he shall eat the flesh of the fat, and tear their claws in pieces.

17 Woe to the idol shepherd that leaveth the flock! the sword shall be upon his arm, and upon his right eye: his arm shall be clean dried up, and his right eye shall be utterly darkened.

Quote

If indeed the quote "old covenant" ended, would not it have ended instantaneously? But there is a process of decay that is a process in the subject matter of Hebrews 8:13. As we know, the Aaronic priesthood was declining and would soon cease to be relevant when the temple was destroyed.

Yes it ended instantaneously at the point of Messiahs death .. the process of decay was spoken of in Daniel long before Hebrews, concerning the "overspreading of abominations" of which we can see that the (spiritual desolation) of Israel (because of the choosing the Law of Moses over Christ) will continue even to the consummation (2nd coming), which we can observe today in the real world as Israel indeed still chooses the Law of Moses .. and what did God say concerning those who choose that Law, which is null & void? He says that those who do this must STILL keep every precept of that Law and will still be judged by that Law, even though it is null & void .. it is a curse unto those who choose it, but nevertheless, out of that group, there is still to be an "election of grace" for the father's sake .. those remnants are added to the basket of "good figs" and must learn of Christ during the millennium in their flesh .. whereas those IN Christ will be SPIRIT like the angels, which fulfils this : "the last will be first and the first will be last" .. not forgetting what Christ also spoke of concerning what their traditions were doing to the Old covenant when He was ministering before crucifixion also.

Quote

Furthermore, your interpretation is at odds with so much of the rest of the scripture.  For example, Y'shua's viewpoint is at great odds with yours. He said that not the smallest jot or tittle would pass way until heaven and earth had passed away.

Matthew 5:17-19

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

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Luke 16:17

And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

 

Therefore until the heavens and earth have waxed old, decayed and ready to pass away, not the smallest letter or decoration on the letters of the Torah will fail. It is not possible that two absolutely contradictory beliefs can be true at the same time. Either your interpretation is true or Y'shua's interpretation is true. Both can't be at the same time. 

 

Again, I agree with William's response to you on this, Don't forget that this was spoken BEFORE Christ was crucified, and Christ KEPT the Law right up til His death. Nevertheless, keep in mind what God said about those who choose the Law of Moses over Christ, if one keeps the Law, one must UPHOLD the Law to the very letter .. ALL of it .. that does not mean it is still in effect, no, of course not, it means that what we see happening in the real world confirms what He foretold, and that is that those who follow that Law have CHOSEN to do so at their OWN choosing, meaning, it is not God who upholds that Law, it is the PEOPLE who reject His Son who do this .. and as a consequence, God is going to hold them ACCOUNTABLE ..

After all, the people did say "let His blood be on OUR head and on the heads of our CHILDREN" .. that is a curse .. and what did God call the Old Law? Why He called it a blessing and a CURSE .. now all they have is the CURSE side of it .. and by THEIR BIDDING and not by whether the Law is valid or not, but THEIR choosing to keep it. (Even though GOD has BLINDED THEM for a purpose, there still isn't ONE Israelite on this planet who hasn't heard of Christ .. so there is still personal blame/accountability at play .. even though it is God who blinded them .. for PURPOSES of OUR grace of course which will "spill" back onto them too .. oh the Majesty of His Name)

Quote

It is also important to understand that what is called the New Covenant is not in full force yet. A big part of the NC is that all of the chosen inherit their portion of the land. This is not complete yet. Also, it says that people will no longer say, "Know the LORD, for everyone will know Him." Don't think we are quite there yet....

Also the Hebrew phrase for the "New Covenant" could even be understood as the "Renewed Covenant." The word  "chadesha" often translated as "new" is directly related to "chadesh"

Jer 31:31-34

31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new (()T:2319) 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:

33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

 

 

You do realise that all the past generations of Israelites that God accepts (good figs and not the bad figs) that never knew Christ will be raised to life in the flesh and brought into Israel to learn of Messiah during the millennium right? In fact, every generation even since Christ, God still chooses a remnant of non believing Israelites (for the father's sake ONLY) to be brought into that renewed kingdom yes?

These will be provoked to jealousy by those resurrected saints who were IN Christ and who were changed to eternal spirit at the 2nd coming to rule over those flesh Israelites as kings & priests .. so you are applying the wrong method to those scriptures friend, the NT is indeed in full force .. I am surprised this thing you say is even entertained to be honest.

Quote

OT:2319 chadash (khaw-dawsh'); from OT:2318; new:

OT:2318 chadash (khaw-dash'); a primitive root; to be new; causatively, to rebuild: 
KJV - renew, repair.
 

Isa 66:23  And it shall come to pass, that from one (OT:2320)  new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.

OT:2320 chodesh (kho'-desh); from OT:2318; the new moon; by implication, a month: -month (-ly), new moon.

You can see that these words are from the same root. We do not have a brand new moon every month. The moon is renewed in its phases. 

 You seem to have forgotten to use the same rule you keep saying we all need to follow, that is, God was speaking in terms that the people of those times would use and could understand .. well in this case, that certainly applies .. since it was in the days of Isaiah .. round about a thousand years before Christ dude .. we of today can understand the concept God was conveying to them because we have hindsight and the COMPLETE covenant, yet they of yesterday would have no way of understanding terms and concepts into the future, let alone anything to do with the New covenant whose precepts would have been fully alien to them .. unlike us of today who fully understand their Old covenant along with the New ..

Regards.

[Paradigm]

7 hours ago, Paradigm said:

We have to examine what the subject matter mainly is that has been discussed. Much of Hebrews including this section is discussing the contrast of the priesthood of Melchizedek with the priesthood of Aaron. In my view, the word "priesthood" would have been the proper ellipses rather than "covenant." Regardless, the word "covenant" simply does not appear in the verse that you site as evidence. 

If you are correct in your interpretation that the verse means that God's covenant is decaying and waxing old and ready to vanish away, at what point did it end? If indeed the quote "old covenant" ended, would not it have ended instantaneously? But there is a process of decay that is a process in the subject matter of Hebrews 8:13. As we know, the Aaronic priesthood was declining and would soon cease to be relevant when the temple was destroyed. 

 

38 minutes ago, Serving said:

2) Priesthood would have been a terrible choice Paradigm, just off the top of my head I'll tell you why .. Melchizedek has no beginning and NO END .. so applying "decayeth" & "waxing old" & "vanishing away" to Melchizedek's priesthood, which is personal in implication, would definitely be a mistake .. no, the KJV had it right all along in my discernment.

Do you see why I have said in the past it is probably a waste of time to discuss anything with you? Does anyone other that Serving think that I was saying the priesthood of Melchizedek was decaying, waxing old and vanishing away? 

I am more than happy to have civil and honest discussions, but there is no point if you are going to turn what I said around backwards and then argue against statements that I never made. 

It is not necessary for me to mischaracterize your positions to show the error of them using scripture. I can do it playing fair and square. Isn't it funny that many of you cannot make your points without deliberately twisting what others have said. How can one hope to see the truth when they consistently behave dishonestly?

Edited April 15, 2016 by Paradigm

[Serving]

25 minutes ago, Paradigm said:

 

Do you see why I have said in the past it is probably a waste of time to discuss anything with you? Does anyone other that Serving think that I was saying the priesthood of Melchizedek was decaying, waxing old and vanishing away? 

I am more than happy to have civil and honest discussions, but there is no point if you are going to turn what I said around backwards and then argue against statements that I never made.

It is not necessary for me to mischaracterize your positions to show the error of them using scripture. I can do it playing fair and square. Isn't it funny that many of you cannot make your points without deliberately twisting what others have said. How can one hope to see the truth when they consistently behave dishonestly?

Err .. huh?? Here you go, EXACTLY what you said :

Quote

 the word "priesthood" would have been the proper ellipses rather than "covenant

And WHAT was that in reply to?

The usage of COVENANT here :

Hebrews 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

OBVIOUSLY I was linking Melchizedek with the CONCEPT of BAD USAGE of PRIESTHOOD !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Why? Because MELCHIZEDEK was the HIGH PRIEST of the OLD COVENANT !!! DUH !!!!!!

I would appreciate you desist from attempts of character assassination .. unnecessary.

Unbelievable.

[Paradigm]

7 hours ago, Paradigm said:

As we know, the Aaronic priesthood was declining and would soon cease to be relevant when the temple was destroyed. 

 

1 hour ago, Serving said:

2) Priesthood would have been a terrible choice Paradigm, just off the top of my head I'll tell you why .. Melchizedek has no beginning and NO END .. so applying "decayeth" & "waxing old" & "vanishing away" to Melchizedek's priesthood, which is personal in implication, would definitely be a mistake .. no, the KJV had it right all along in my discernment.

It is very clear what I said and how you responded. 

[Serving]

11 minutes ago, Paradigm said:

 

It is very clear what I said and how you responded.

Well now you know where I was coming from by my explanation above .. I looked over it just now and realised I didn't point out where I was coming from so I apologize I didn't make my point clearer ..  but really, you COULD have read between the lines since you're into philosophy and scripture .. one would think.

Anyway, my POINT still stands .. "priesthood" would have been a terrible replacement for covenant simply for that deeper implication I pointed out .. not forgetting that "covenant" WAS used in those previous verses which were NOT italicized which means that it's usage in v13 is justifiable and consistent with the theme already established. Also, I have been awake all night answering your posts .. it's 7:51 AM here in WA and I am beginning to crash ..

BTW, I have been enjoying this chat regardless.

Cheers.

 

[Serving]

24 minutes ago, Paradigm said:

 

It is very clear what I said and how you responded.

Okay .. I can't go to bed till I straighten this out .. It was a n honest to God mistake .. I am not a sneaky person okay .. even the thought of that is reprehensible to my senses.

Here's what I said : 2) Priesthood would have been a terrible choice Paradigm, just off the top of my head I'll tell you why .. Melchizedek has no beginning and NO END .. so applying "decayeth" & "waxing old" & "vanishing away" to Melchizedek's priesthood, which is personal in implication, would definitely be a mistake .. no, the KJV had it right all along in my discernment.

Here's what I should have said : 2) Priesthood would have been a terrible choice Paradigm, just off the top of my head I'll tell you why .. when speaking of priesthood, Melchizedek comes to mind, and since Melchizedek is the High Priest of the Old Testament, it can have negative connotations on a deeper level .. why? because Melchizedek has no beginning and NO END .. so applying "decayeth" & "waxing old" & "vanishing away" to priesthood, which is personal in implication, would definitely be a mistake in regards to connotations towards Melchizedek .. no, the KJV had it right all along in my discernment.

Hope that sets it straight .. now I must crash.

[Paradigm]

4 minutes ago, Serving said:

Okay .. I can't go to bed till I straighten this out .. It was a n honest to God mistake .. I am not a sneaky person okay .. even the thought of that is reprehensible to my senses.

Here's what I said : 2) Priesthood would have been a terrible choice Paradigm, just off the top of my head I'll tell you why .. Melchizedek has no beginning and NO END .. so applying "decayeth" & "waxing old" & "vanishing away" to Melchizedek's priesthood, which is personal in implication, would definitely be a mistake .. no, the KJV had it right all along in my discernment.

Here's what I should have said : 2) Priesthood would have been a terrible choice Paradigm, just off the top of my head I'll tell you why .. when speaking of priesthood, Melchizedek comes to mind, and since Melchizedek is the High Priest of the Old Testament, it can have negative connotations on a deeper level .. why? because Melchizedek has no beginning and NO END .. so applying "decayeth" & "waxing old" & "vanishing away" to priesthood, which is personal in implication, would definitely be a mistake in regards to connotations towards Melchizedek .. no, the KJV had it right all along in my discernment.

Hope that sets it straight .. now I must crash.

Apology accepted Serving. I also apologize for thinking your were deliberately trying to mischaracterize what I said. I see now that it was an honest mistake. I hope everything is cleared up and that you sleep well tonight.

 

In light of the discussion, much of the content of that whole section is contrasting the order of Melchizedek with the priesthood of Aaron. It is showing that the Melchizedekian priesthood is superior. 

The entirety of chapter 7 is contrasting the priesthood of Melchizedek with the priesthood of Aaron. Originally there were not chapter and verses designation, therefore the there would have been no division between the content of chapter 7 and 8.  

Hebrews 8

1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;

2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.

3 For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.

4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:

5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.

6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

7 For if that first covenant (The Word Covenant is Not There) had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Chapter 9 picks right back up showing the contrast of the earthy and heavenly sanctuary

Hebrews 9

1 Then verily the first covenant (The word covenant is added and was not there) had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.

2 For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread; which is called the sanctuary.

3 And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all;

4 Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant;

Therefore we can see that most of the content of these chapters is contrasting the order of Melchizedek with the order of Aaron and the earthly sanctuary with the heavenly. Using the ellipses of priesthood or sanctuary does not contradict the rest of scripture. 

Ephesians 2:11-13

11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; 12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: 13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

What covenants were Gentiles strangers from, but are now made part of?

 

1 Chronicles 16:17

And hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant,

Psalm 105:10

And confirmed the same unto Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant:

 

Isaiah 24:5

The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.

 

Ezekiel 16:60

Nevertheless I will remember my covenant with thee in the days of thy youth, and I will establish unto thee aneverlasting covenant.

 

If we entertain the notion that The Almighty has done away with the everlasting covenant made with Israel, could He be trusted not to do away with the renewed covenant at some point? If He said forever regarding His Sabbath and other things and then He decided to do away with what He said, that does not bode well. However, we know that YHVH does not change.

 

Deuteronomy 7:9

Know therefore that the Lord thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations;

There was only 42 generations from Abraham to Y'shua.

1 Kings 8:23

And he said, Lord God of Israel, there is no God like thee, in heaven above, or on earth beneath, who keepest covenant and mercy with thy servants that walk before thee with all their heart: