inchrist

Two House Theology and its eschatological significance

243 posts in this topic

3 hours ago, Zach said:

A Jew is any person whose mother was a Jew or any person who has gone through the formal process of conversion to Judaism

http://www.jewfaq.org/m/whoisjew.htm

That's according to Jewish law.   I am speaking to the false teaching that faith in Jesus makes one a "Jew."

Quote

Yeshua was born to Jewish parents, circumcised on the eight day, this by definition puts him squarely in the Covenant. It fact he wore Tzitzit tells us as a grown man he was still in the Covenant.

Jesus operated in the office of prophet under the Old Testament economy.  Jesus as a man was under that Covenant.   Jesus as God was not.

 

Quote

Since when does being a High Priest put anyone OUTSIDE the Covenant?

Jesus isn't the priest over the Aaronic priesthood.   Jesus is the High Priest after the order of Melchi-Tzedek, which is an eternal priesthood, not an earthly one.   It is not rooted in the Mosaic Covenant.   It in that priestly order that Jesus administers the New Covenant.  

Quote

I would appreciate if you would post any 'explicit' Scripture proving the above derived denominational dogma.

Jesus made this clear:

And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
(Mat 26:26-28)

The New Covenant was cut in the blood of Jesus.   Jesus was God the Father's Covenant Lamb, among other things.   The New Covenant was not cut in our blood.   We did not offer Jesus as our representative.   God the Father offered Jesus and Heplaced the weight of our sin on Jesus.  The Covenant a Divine work, not a Divine + human work.  We have NOTHING to do with the existence of the New Covenant   It was not the product of any exchange between ourselves and the Father.  We don't help God provide Salvation.   Salvation is provided for us and to us.   We are not God's covenant partners.  To suggest that we are in Covenant with God is the height of human arrogance.

Quote

Did you use the word "hogwash"? Surely you can do better than that.

I used the word that best describes your slander against the Church.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

That's according to Jewish law.   I am speaking to the false teaching that faith in Jesus makes one a "Jew."

Yes, it's according to Jewish Law. Christian dogma replaces keeping of the Covenant with faith only. Since the conditions of the Covenant are not kept what makes anyone think just saying they have faith Yeshua is from God accomplishes anything? The verse; 'even demons believe God is one...' can be applied here.

5 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

Jesus operated in the office of prophet under the Old Testament economy.  Jesus as a man was under that Covenant.   Jesus as God was not.

I suggest you follow basic word meanings rather than denominational derived doctrine. Words mean things, the word Covenant means a agreement between two parties. God in making a Covenant with mankind placed Himself in the Covenant - if He wasn't in the Covenant there wouldn't be a "covenant".

5 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

Jesus isn't the priest over the Aaronic priesthood.   Jesus is the High Priest after the order of Melchi-Tzedek, which is an eternal priesthood, not an earthly one.   It is not rooted in the Mosaic Covenant.   It in that priestly order that Jesus administers the New Covenant.  

Yes, Hebrews midrash speaks of Melchizedek in the context of Abraham giving him a tithe before the existence of Aaron. However you are overlooking the fact that Abraham was in a Covenant relationship with God. You also need to read the Tanach Text for why Abraham gave to Melchizedek; this is the P'shat meaning of the text, Hebrews is a drash on it, therefore your denominational derived doctrine is a drash upon a drash. Quite frankly, you're out on a limb and therefore confused as to what the "New" Covenant exactly is. This is because through your made up dogma you confuse "New" with "Different" making up your own "New" Covenant which is "different" from the one God made with man. Good luck with that.

5 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

 

Jesus made this clear:

And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
(Mat 26:26-28)

The New Covenant was cut in the blood of Jesus.   Jesus was God the Father's Covenant Lamb, among other things.   The New Covenant was not cut in our blood.   We did not offer Jesus as our representative.   God the Father offered Jesus and Heplaced the weight of our sin on Jesus.  The Covenant a Divine work, not a Divine + human work.  We have NOTHING to do with the existence of the New Covenant   It was not the product of any exchange between ourselves and the Father.  We don't help God provide Salvation.   Salvation is provided for us and to us. 

 

You'd been better off to quote Luke so as not to be confined to the Textus Receptus for your inclusion of the word "new". That aside, my request was for "explicit" Scripture proving your dogma. The one verse you provided proves nothing of the man made dogma you are peddling. Matthew simply calls it the 'blood of the Covenant' Luke adds the word "new". Who was at the last supper? Matthew or Luke? Additionally even if you accept Luke you have to pour another meaning into the word 'new' to make match your man made dogma. 

What you fail to realize is; The work of Yeshua's Covenant it ENTIRELY based on the Abrahamic blood Covenant.

6 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

We are not God's covenant partners.  To suggest that we are in Covenant with God is the height of human arrogance.

Really? So you don't have to work out your salvation with fear and trembling? 

These two sentences just might be the pinnacle of error arising out of your man made denominational doctrine.

Again, I think it only fair to request explicit Scripture for such a outrageous claim.

 

6 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

I used the word that best describes your slander against the Church.

 I was commenting on you resorting to the word "hogwash" rather than supporting your position. I'd like to say it saddens me, (it partly does for your sake) but it reinforces the weakness of this systematic doctrine you take as more authoritative than Scripture itself.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Zach said:

Yes, it's according to Jewish Law. Christian dogma replaces keeping of the Covenant with faith only. Since the conditions of the Covenant are not kept what makes anyone think just saying they have faith Yeshua is from God accomplishes anything? The verse; 'even demons believe God is one...' can be applied here.

Jewish law doesn't necessarily follow Scripture. 

The New Covenant is an unconditional covenant.  It has nothing to do with us.  We don't "keep" the New Covenant.  It is kept for us.  Jesus is the one who keeps the conditions of the New Covenant, not us.   Our faith in Jesus and the finished work of the cross is credited to us as righteousness in the same way that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness.   We are saved by grace through faith, and it is not of ourselves, not by works so that none of us can boast.  (Eph. 2:8,9).  The works we do are the fruit of faith and salvation, not the means by which salvation is procured.

Quote

I suggest you follow basic word meanings rather than denominational derived doctrine. Words mean things, the word Covenant means a agreement between two parties. God in making a Covenant with mankind placed Himself in the Covenant - if He wasn't in the Covenant there wouldn't be a "covenant".

In the case of the New Covenant (as was the case in the Abrahamic Covenant), the two parties are God the Father and God the Son.  The Father and Jesus are  are the only guarantors of it.   God the Father did not make the New Covenant with mankind.

Quote

Yes, Hebrews midrash speaks of Melchizedek in the context of Abraham giving him a tithe before the existence of Aaron. However you are overlooking the fact that Abraham was in a Covenant relationship with God. You also need to read the Tanach Text for why Abraham gave to Melchizedek; this is the P'shat meaning of the text, Hebrews is a drash on it, therefore your denominational derived doctrine is a drash upon a drash. Quite frankly, you're out on a limb and therefore confused as to what the "New" Covenant exactly is. This is because through your made up dogma you confuse "New" with "Different" making up your own "New" Covenant which is "different" from the one God made with man. Good luck with that.

This has nothing to do with any demonination.   And most of that is useless, irrelevant commentary regarding my point.   My point is that Jesus is our High Priest and He is administering the New Covenant.   He died to make the Covenant and was resurrected to ensure that the Covenant would remain.  He rose from the dead guarantee it. He is not "under" the New Covenant.   He is the Lord of it.

Quote

You'd been better off to quote Luke so as not to be confined to the Textus Receptus for your inclusion of the word "new". That aside, my request was for "explicit" Scripture proving your dogma. The one verse you provided proves nothing of the man made dogma you are peddling. Matthew simply calls it the 'blood of the Covenant' Luke adds the word "new". Who was at the last supper? Matthew or Luke? Additionally even if you accept Luke you have to pour another meaning into the word 'new' to make match your man made dogma. 

More irrelevant drivel meant to hide the fact that you can't refute the substance of what I said.   The fact that the new covenant was cut  in JESUS' blood and not our blood means that the covenant wasn't made with us.  Ordinarily, both parties have to shed blood to enter into covenant together.   God departs from that protocol slightly in cutting the covenant in the blood of Jesus.  The only blood shed was Jesus' blood.  So we have nothing to do with the covenant.  It was not made with us.  It was made for us.   It has nothing to do with the difference between "new" or "different." 

Quote

What you fail to realize is; The work of Yeshua's Covenant it ENTIRELY based on the Abrahamic blood Covenant.

No, I don't fail to realize that at all.  It's the model for New Covenant.  It's why Abraham was not allowed to walk with God between the halves.  Technically, it was not made with Abraham.   It was made to him or  for him.   The burning torch and the smoking oven that walked together was the Father and Jesus.   The same fire and smoke that was present in the making of the Covenant and the promise to deliver Abraham's descendants from slavery is the same fire and smoke that led them out of slavery in fulfillment of that promise.   It is the same two Persons, who are responsible for the New Covenant being made for us.

 

Quote

Really? So you don't have to work out your salvation with fear and trembling? 

Working out your salvation, as Paul puts it Phil 2:12 isn't about working for your salvation.  It means to put your salvation on display, to live out your salvation publicly.  Your life should reflect the realities of the indwelling presence of God in the Person of the Holy Spirit.  And Paul's admonition was to a church, not a person.   He was telling the Philippian church, as a congregation, to put their corporate salvation on display in the middle of that little Roman colony so that their presence would be a witness to the unsaved community.

Quote

 

These two sentences just might be the pinnacle of error arising out of your man made denominational doctrine.

Again, I think it only fair to request explicit Scripture for such a outrageous claim.

 

You have gotten everything you need.

Quote

 I was commenting on you resorting to the word "hogwash" rather than supporting your position. I'd like to say it saddens me, (it partly does for your sake) but it reinforces the weakness of this systematic doctrine you take as more authoritative than Scripture itself.

Your original comment was hogwash and you're the one who would need to defend something not me.  I don't have to defend what doesn't need defending.   Your assessment of the church is pure drivel and undeserving any response that would give you impression that your remark should be taken seriously by anyone.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites