Why Was There A Day Of Atonement PLUS People Giving Personal Sacrifice's?

[Anne2]

1 minute ago, Josheb said:

I'm reading a contradiction:

Maybre there's a type or missed word in there somewhere. How is "...we are still in our flesh.... we walk just like Abraham..." not something "about walking of the flesh"? 

How can we be tempted apart from the sinful nature? It is our flesh that causes us to be tempted. We struggle against it. It is our flesh that makes it hard. But we have God working things of him in us as we go through trials. He works patience in us.

[Anne2]

1 minute ago, Josheb said:

Am I to understand that to mean until God spoke the words, thereby making a promise which made what He said inescapable, it might have been different? God might have changed his plan until He spoke it? 

Clarify that for me. 

I am referencing Hebrews for the term "changeable".

21  (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:) {without … : or, without swearing of an oath }
22  By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
23  And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:
24  But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.

Read the law of Moses. God continously speaks of the oath he sware to their fathers. That I might keep the oath he sware etc. Sometimes he just says oath.

1 Chron  16:15  Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations;
16  Even of the covenant which he made with Abraham, and of his oath unto Isaac;
17  And hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant,
The word used there for law.. is used of the ordinance for keeping the passover memorial service.

24  And ye shall observe this thing for an ordinance to thee and to thy sons for ever.
25  And it shall come to pass, when ye be come to the land which the LORD will give you, according as he hath promised, that ye shall keep this service.
 

Again in David

5  Remember his marvellous works that he hath done; his wonders, and the judgments of his mouth;
6  O ye seed of Abraham his servant, ye children of Jacob his chosen.
7  He is the LORD our God: his judgments are in all the earth.
8  He hath remembered his covenant for ever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations.
9  Which covenant he made with Abraham, and his oath unto Isaac;
10  And confirmed the same unto Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant:
 

It will never change, he keeps his oath. We of the nations were included in that oath. It just had it's own time to come to pass is all. Until the seed to whom was promised Christ Jesus. 

I don't know how to explain it better than that. Kings/priest/prophets, all anointed ones Christs, folded into to one office in the seed of kings in Genesis 17.

As Hebrews speaks of it Isaac, Jacob were CO-Heirs.

If I find Josheb, that my thoughts on this are error, I will accept it. So I take no offence at all at any true correction you might find.

[Anne2]

39 minutes ago, Josheb said:

Am I to understand that to mean until God spoke the words, thereby making a promise which made what He said inescapable, it might have been different? God might have changed his plan until He spoke it? 

Clarify that for me. 

Do the faithless and wicked inherit? See this

Ge 18:19  For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.

How his Children walk are said to be what brings upon Abraham that which he spoke.

Often times God says things in scripture for us to know a thing. To understand.

An example is the difference between how Paul and James speak of of Abraham being Just by works of faith. See how James speaks of it.

Jas 2:23  And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

It appears as though James is speaking differently than Paul, as he speaks of Abraham sacrificing Isaac as a work done by faith. Where Paul never mentions that at all. I believe what you have is a case of God saying something in scripture for our benefit.

As is spoken of in 1 Peter 1:

10   Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:
11  Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.
12  Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.
 

Somethings are just in scripture for our benefit of understanding in our time.

[Anne2]

41 minutes ago, Josheb said:

Four thoughts

1. The original statement is God's promise to Abraham was changeable to the oath. What these verses are citing as unchangeable is the priesthood, not the covenant. Not only is this a false equivalence (apples and oranges) but there was no Levitical priesthood in Abraham's day. The Levitical priesthood was the change! I posted about this sevral posts ago when speaking about the unified civil and religious rule. God never wanted a Levitical priesthood. God originally asked Moses, not Aaron, to be that guy. God's permitting the division between the civil and religious ule was a concession to Moses' refusal to go, much like God giving Israel an earthly monarchy was a concession to a God-rejecting people. 
    
2. The word "everlasting" does not mean unchangeable. Furthermore, it is only everlasting as long as the terms of the covenant are met, and Israel did not meet its part of the covenant. God declared tem covenant-breakers, divorced them, and gave the covenant to a new people. A people who were not his own were called His own. I again point to the fact it was God who waked through the divided animal carcasses, pledging Himself as the sacrifice were the covenant broken. That sacrifice was Christ. Israel not only broke the covenant, they killed the sacrifice that would fulfilled the covenant for them. They again rejected their king. 
    
3. Again I reiterate this all began with creation, not Abraham Moses, or David. It wasn't the oath to Abraham that made anything changeable or unchangeable. The covenant wasn't decided some evening in the middle of nowhere with Abraham, or on some mountain top in the desert with Moses. It was decided prior to creation. Nothing has changed. Nothing had changed in any of the covenants. They were and remain about Christ crucified and resurrected. 
    
4. We, the sons and daughters of God adopted through Christ, are the unchangeable priests. The author of Hebrews is not saying the Levitical priesthood is the unchangeable priesthood. The seed promised Abraham is Christ. The only priesthood relevant to that covenant was that of Mel and JC is that guy. 
    

Slight amendment: He has kept His oath and continues to do so.  

1. What do you think the Sinai covenant was?

Ex 19:5  Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:
6  And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

2. a) It means never ending in Hebrews. Why are you speaking about the Levitical priesthood? I never as well as Hebrews did not speak of anything but the order of Melchizedek being unchangeable. 

b) Israel entered into an oath to keep the Moab covenant besides which contained curses as well. What has that to do with an unchangeable. The law was not of faith.  Christ became a curse for them. A curse is opposed to mercy, and blessings of the covenant made with Abraham.

3. Yes. Noah was an heir of the righteousness which is by faith. An oath again

Isa 54:9  For this is as the waters of Noah unto me: for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth; so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee.

4) I quoted Hebrews concerning the order of Melchizedek that was unchangeable???? This is the second time you have brought things up I never said.

Your amendment

Yes, What did I say differently?

Edited March 15, 2022 by Anne2

[Anne2]

On 3/15/2022 at 11:12 AM, Josheb said:

Is it being implied or otherwise insinuated I put words into your posts you did not write? 

 

If so, if that is what is being implied, then...

This is the second time I will say I was simply covering a base preemptively and furthering the conversation asserting some content and precluding other content.

This is also the second time it has been wrongly assumed I was bringing up things you never said as if they were said. I never said what it is somehow imagined I am saying you said. Never once said anything different was claimed. Didn't even mentioned once mentioned any poster in that post. 

I did, in fact, affirm the fact it was the priesthood that was unchangeable. It's right there in my post for any and all to see.

I never said you said anything differently. I did not mention you once. Never said you said anything different than what was posted. Such things do not appear anywhere in my post. 

If you're feeling defensive (or adversarial), then why? If there is no defensiveness, then why is it being asserted there is a problem with my broaching content you never mentioned and why am I being asked what you said differently? 

Do we need to take a break from this conversation? 

Yes, we do. Sorry to have just disappeared. Had to put a loved pet down. Just sad, it was awful. Emergency type situation. So I will have to go back, and look at what I was talking about. I don't think you did it intentionally. You are quicker on the draw with this discussion than me. It became frustrating to me cuz you asked me several things I did not answer  cuz I am slower on the draw than you. No reason for me to get ouchy, so sorry. LOL, I can't respond as fast.

[Anne2]

On 3/14/2022 at 9:48 PM, Josheb said:

Four thoughts

1. The original statement is God's promise to Abraham was changeable to the oath. What these verses are citing as unchangeable is the priesthood, not the covenant. Not only is this a false equivalence (apples and oranges) but there was no Levitical priesthood in Abraham's day. The Levitical priesthood was the change! 

 

Gonna take this one at a time

I don't understand what this is?  "Changeable to the oath"?  Or how it relates to what I have said (not saying it doesn't, i am just not seeing it)

What I was trying to say is..... I see two covenants made with Abraham. These are "like" the veil in the temple, as it is a divide of a whole. God says things to Abraham all along the way.

Some want to place those things said as covenants in themselves (Arnold Fructenbaum). Saying there are four covenants there with the saying of "I will". I believe that is a mistake. I do not believe anything God said to Abraham was binding until He swore the oath in Genesis 22. And the making of the covenants distinguished between the two promises both as to heirs, and inheritance. It was all based upon Faith. God brought Abraham to the fullness or completion of faith. Once God swore the oath, nothing could be added to either covenant, nor taken away. No there was no Levitical priesthood. Nor was it based upon it. Not for Abraham anyway. Abraham IMO was a Noachide. We in walking like Abraham, walk by faith, in grace. We will be tried, like he was. Disciplined as Children. To add promises made in Genesis 17, to the covenant made in Genesis 15, Is a mistake. That is what Judaism does. That is why they were attempting to fulfill Genesis 17, by the Sinai covenant.

In todays environment, I think these things are important. Not to confuse what each of those covenants provide distinctly.

Edited March 22, 2022 by Anne2

[MattLovesCoffee]

On 3/10/2022 at 4:06 PM, Josheb said:

What tribulation? 

According to Matthew 24 the disciples to whom Jesus was speaking would be handed over to tribulation. This is plainly stated in the text. If you think there is more than one tribulation then you'll have to evidence and explain that position, otherwise Jesus trumps Zechariah. 

Matthew 24:9
Then they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you, and you will be hated by all nations because of My name.

Matthew 24:20-22
But pray that your flight will not be in the winter, or on a Sabbath.  For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will.  Unless those days had been cut short, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short.

 

Who is the "you" in that sentence? It is the disciples to whom he is speaking. It is "you," not "they".  It is disciples of Christ, not Gentile non-believers. Jesus is either referencing the tribulation of the OT prophets or there is more than one tribulation. Make your case.

In order to hold the view that Mark 13, Matthew 24, Luke 21 has already been fulfilled one needs to, IMO, discard all other prophecies, or twist them, and take Christ's words out of context. How can you say "Christ trumps Zechariah" when Christ referred to the prophets as the Word of God, in that Christ spoke through them?

If you read the book of Barnabas (yes I know it's not canon, but is insightful) you'd notice the first century believers eventually figured out that the end of the age would occur at the end of 6000 years, the 6000 year long period from Adam's fall to Christ's return. They realised the Sabbath Rest is a prophecy, that one day represents 1000 years. Even the book of Hebrews and Revelation confirm the Millennium will be 1000 years long, being one prophetic day long, being the 7th, symbolic of the Sabbath Rest. Next, the Book of Revelation was written after the destruction of the temple in 70AD, so John is referring to another temple in Revelation 11, the same one referenced by Daniel, Paul, and even Christ (Matthew 24:15). That already shows you don't know to whom the "you" is referring to. Verse 34 tells us who the "you" is referring to, it is referring to the generation that sees ALL the signs. Peter's generation didn't witness all the signs, therefore the Olivet Discourse has not yet been fulfilled. Read Peter's question in Matthew 24 carefully, he asked when Herod's temple would be destroyed and what would be the signs of the end of the age. Each of the authors actually wrote Peter's question differently. But to the Jews the end of the age is referring to the Day of YHWH, when God comes to earth in clouds with thunder and earthquakes and great noise (i.e. Isaiah 29:5-6; 13:1-16; Matthew 24:27; Joel 2:30-32). What you assume is that Christ is actually answering the first part of Peter's question directly, not realising Christ is rather prophesying about the signs leading up to His return at the end of the age and not to Herod's temple. For example, He says the Gospel will be preached to all the nations of the world, that obviously wasn't fulfilled before 70AD but is referring to the angelic preaching mentioned in Revelation 14:6-11. That obviously hasn't happened, therefore Matthew 24 has NOT yet been fulfilled, therefore there is another tribulation coming, a tribulation of such proportions that the whole world has never seen or experienced yet. The tribulations of the first century church wasn't unique, the fourth century believers experienced worse persecution under Emperor Diocletian, that's long after Herod's temple was destroyed.

What you misunderstand about the New Covenant is that it gives the power for one to obey the Old Covenant. The New Covenant didn't do away with the Old Covenant, rather Christ's sacrifice and resurrection provides the power to the individual to live in obedience to the Law of Moses. The Church has been beguiled ever since the Catholic Church claimed the Torah was done away with. Their reasoning was done in order so that individuals would look to the Catholic Church for spiritual guidance as opposed to the Law of Moses. They even managed to fool believers into disobeying one of the Ten Commandments, being the Sabbath Rest, because if they could get a believer to discard a command of God they could get them to overlook all the others and be apathetic towards the Torah.

You wanna follow Christ's example? Then obey the Law of Moses because that's what He did. And it's why when He returns He'll build Ezekiel's temple (40-48), reestablish the Levitical priesthood and restore the animal sacrifices. It's then all the people from the Gentile nations (Zechariah 14:15) that were not destroyed (Zechariah 12:9: Zechariah 14:1-4) will go up to Jerusalem to worship God (Zechariah 8:20-22; 14:16-21; Micah 4:1-3).

Edit:

Just wanna add. The ritual and ceremonial laws are symbolic, they are not performed to earn salvation, but are rather performed as a symbolic reminder of what Christ has done for us. Water baptism is a ritual that finds its origin in the Torah, in Hebrew they call it a mikvah, something the Jews still practice today. The same principle, or thought process, needs to be applied to the whole of Torah. There's always a deeper symbolic meaning. Breaking bread is also another Jewish tradition that finds its origin from the time spent in the Wilderness, its a ritual Christians have adopted because of Christ yet don't have any quibbles about whether or not its legalistic to honour the tradition. But mention the keeping of the Sabbath, or not eating pork, or keeping the seven festivals and new moon calendar and the response is many Christians being up in arms while shouting out "that's legalism." Go figure.

Edited March 22, 2022 by MattLovesCoffee
Added a note.

[Anne2]

19 hours ago, Josheb said:

Great. 

How in scripture are these things evidenced?  For example...

Where do I find scripture stating there are two covenants with Abe? Where do I find scripture stating Abe is "Noachide"?

How and why?

2 covenants

Ga 4:24  Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

Righteousness by faith

Heb 11:7  By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith. 

Why it is important?

Because of the conversation you are now having with another poster right now.

IMO,

They try to put the promises of the eternal inheritance spoken in the prophets into the inheritance spoken of in Gen 15. They do this because they don't distinguish the covenants there, nor the royal nature of the covenant 17. They don't, won't, or can't, distinguish between the two and the limitations inherent to them.

 

Edited March 23, 2022 by Anne2

[Anne2]

3 hours ago, Josheb said:

Sinai is not Abraham; it's Moses. Furthermore, the element of "the righteous shall live by faith runs through all the covenants, not just Ab's and Moses'. If it hasn't been done already, I also reluctantly recommend you read some reading on Dispensationalism because they do in fact make distinctions between the covenants and they recognize the element of faith; they just say the means of demonstrating that faith are different from dispensation to dispensation. The chief difference between their pov and ours is that they don't place an emphasis on the covenants. They do dispensations. Hence their name, Dispensational Premillennialism.  

 

However, I think I'm beginning to understand what you're saying: Sarah is a covenant and Hagar is a covenant and there is therefore two covenants. The things that ties them together is Abraham, who sired a child by both. 

My response is to observe the covenant with Hagar was not a covenant God made. It is a covenant of disobedience, of the flesh. Abraham tried to make the promise of God happen by his own volition, his own flesh. This is an example of what John was writing about in John 1:13 = children born of the will of man and the flesh of man. Paul is also drawing a connection between Sinai and Hagar, which is one of the reasons I (and those subscribing to just about every other eschatological pov besides Dispensationalism) see continuity in scripture and the covenants), rather than the discontinuity asserted in dispensations. When the New Testament writers wrote of the righteous living by faith they were references Old Testament examples like Abraham and those listed in Hebrews 11, but they were also quoting Habakkuk. 

Habakkuk 2:4
Behold, as for the proud one, His soul is not right within him; But the righteous will live by his faith.

 

The righteous living by faith began in Eden, not Ur, Salem, or Sinai. The thing that ties them all together is Christ. 

Romans 1:16-17 ESV
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.  For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.

The covenant of the flesh is neither God's covenant nor a goldy covenant. Neither works of the flesh nor works of flesh merit anything in God's eyes. Even the righteous act is filthy rags when performed in the flesh. 

I did not say Sinai was Abraham. The women are.

1. An allegory for the two covenants i.e. Sinai and the Jerusalem above (new covenant in Christ)

2. The covenants are wills of inheritance. God gave Abraham Heirs. As the book of Hebrews points out.

Heb 9:16  For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. {be: or, be brought in }
Heb 9:17  For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

Notice: Abraham gave gifts to his other sons while he yet lived. A Testament is not of force until the death of the testator....

Gen 25:5  And Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac.
6  But unto the sons of the concubines, which Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts, and sent them away from Isaac his son, while he yet lived, eastward, unto the east country.
7  And these are the days of the years of Abraham’s life which he lived, an hundred threescore and fifteen years.
8  Then Abraham gave up the ghost, and died in a good old age, an old man, and full of years; and was gathered to his people.
 

As for Faith, yes from the beginning it was always about faith. And yes the law of faith was not absent of any covenant. But you asked me about Noah. I was going to include this verse, but chose not to.

Ro 3:27  Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

Ro 8:24  For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?
 

 ACCORDING TO HOPE. Hope is important here. Abe Isaac Jacob walked in hope. Scripture tells us we do not hope for what we see. If we see it why do we yet hope for it. In other words we hope for things not given in this world and this life. Sinai was an inheritance that was attained and they seen it. Therefore it was not according to hope. Faith yes, but not in hope of the next life.

This is why

God spoke of things which were not as though they were..

Ro 8:25  But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.
 

Judaism understands Sinai to be an inheritance, as Heirs of the promises. They are the heirs of the land, which is earthly worldly. Levi also inherited the priesthood which is earthly aqnd worldly. The problem is, they do not distinguish between the eternal and temporal as heirs. Many today are doing the same thing with the prophets. They are stuffing eternal things into Genesis 15. Sinai in no way gave it's rulers Priests and judges etc. that office or authority. They went far beyond the government given them in the Sinai covenant.

Edited March 23, 2022 by Anne2

[Anne2]

3 hours ago, Josheb said:

Yes, I understood that. However, the original point being discussed is the premise there are two covenants in Abraham.  You cannot post "I see to covenants made with Abraham," and then explain the two covenants as also say, "That is why they were attempting to fulfill Genesis 17, by the Sinai covenant," and also appeal to Galatians 4:24 as evidence of two covenant with Abraham and then also post, "I did not say Sinai was Abraham".

Here's the reasoning posted: 

There are two covenants made with Abraham.
The Jews tried to fulfill the Genesis 17 covenant with Abraham by the Sinai covenant.
Galatians 4:24 says there are two covenants, Sarah and Hagar. 
I did not say Sinai was Abraham. 

 

We're discussing the premise there are two covenants made with Abraham. Galatians 4:24 does not say the Hagar "covenant" is a covenant made with Abraham. I'm still looking for the evidence two covenants made with Abraham. There was one covenant made with Abraham that had several components to it all of which testified one way or another to Jesus and the pre-existing covenant in his life, death, resurrection and ascension. 
 

Where is the evidence of two components of one covenant?