The LAW's and our example of them

[Guest yod]

Since Jesus said he would build his church on Peter, the Rock, I have no problem with him being an Apostle to BOTH the Jews and Gentiles, since BOTH make up the New Church.

Since He didn't say that His church was built on Peter, you have come to the wrong conclusion

Strike 1

I was pointing out to you that Peter, Himself, considered him an Apostle to the Gentiles, [/qtuote]

And I was pointing out to you that Peter didn't say that he was an "apostle to the gentiles"...and never was.

Strike 2

In Romans, Galatians, Hebrews, Thessalonians, etc, he had to keep setting the record straight that Salvation is By Grace and Grace ALONE and that the Old Covenant did not apply to Christians. It was fulfilled, completed, ended, satisfied with the Sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross.

No one said it was necessary for salvation in this entire thread so you are addressing a straw man.

However, Yeshua Himself said that He did not come to abolish the Law. You are again misquoting (or at least mistranslating) what the text actually says to impose what you think it says and you are wrong again. The penalty of the law has been fulfilled.

That is quite a different matter.

Strike 3 Yer out.

[Guest yod]

Since Jesus said he would build his church on Peter, the Rock, I have no problem with him being an Apostle to BOTH the Jews and Gentiles, since BOTH make up the New Church.

Since He didn't say that, you have come to the wrong conclusion

Strike 1

I was pointing out to you that Peter, Himself, considered him an Apostle to the Gentiles,

And I was pointing out to you that Peter didn't say that either.

Strike 2

In Romans, Galatians, Hebrews, Thessalonians, etc, he had to keep setting the record straight that Salvation is By Grace and Grace ALONE and that the Old Covenant did not apply to Christians. It was fulfilled, completed, ended, satisfied with the Sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross.

No one said it was necessary for salvation in this entire thread so you are addressing a straw man.

However, Yeshua Himself said that He did not come to abolish the Law. You are again misquoting (or at least mistranslating) what the text actually says to impose what you think it says and you are wrong again.

The penalty of the law has been fulfilled. That is quite a different matter.

Strike 3 Yer out.

[Guest Logos Believer]

Since Jesus said he would build his church on Peter, the Rock, I have no problem with him being an Apostle to BOTH the Jews and Gentiles, since BOTH make up the New Church.

Since He didn't say that, you have come to the wrong conclusion

Strike 1

I was pointing out to you that Peter, Himself, considered him an Apostle to the Gentiles,

And I was pointing out to you that Peter didn't say that either.

Strike 2

In Romans, Galatians, Hebrews, Thessalonians, etc, he had to keep setting the record straight that Salvation is By Grace and Grace ALONE and that the Old Covenant did not apply to Christians. It was fulfilled, completed, ended, satisfied with the Sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross.

No one said it was necessary for salvation in this entire thread so you are addressing a straw man.

However, Yeshua Himself said that He did not come to abolish the Law. You are again misquoting (or at least mistranslating) what the text actually says to impose what you think it says and you are wrong again.

The penalty of the law has been fulfilled. That is quite a different matter.

Strike 3 Yer out.

I'm so Happy you're such an Accomplished Expert on God's Word, May your 'True Visions' be ever a source of wonder and Amazement for All mankind. I do hope, for your sake the Jesus agrees with YOUR views. However the Commentaries I have (many very notable ones) do disagree with many of your Conclusions. Shame they are only from mortal Man and Your opinion is from such a high standard. Maybe you should write your own commentary for publication.

Fortunately for me, I depend on God's Strikes, not yours. And he lost count and quit counting at my conversion.

Acts 15:7 At the meeting, after a long discussion, Peter stood and addressed them as follows: “Brothers, you all know that God chose me from among you some time ago to preach to the Gentiles so that they could hear the Good News and believe.

Appears to me that pretty clearly states that PETER was talking. Cancel strike 2 As to the others, I don't figure anyone as confident of their superior knowledge as you seem to be needs further commentary, besides, you would just misquote or misapply it anyway.

May His Blessings be upon you.

Edited March 16, 2006 by Logos Believer

[Guest Logos Believer]

And, with only a few exceptions, the Old Covenant is called flawed and out of service, replaced by the NEW.

The Bible says no such thing.

As you wish. That's not what I see in Heb 8:13 but if that's how the Spirit leads you see it. May God bless and Guide your path

That is because you miss the point that Paul is making. The context is talking about the old sacrificial system. Hebrews 8:13

is not saying that the Old Covenant is flawed. God's systems are never flawed.

Furthermore the term New Covenant as it is first used in Jer 31 is "Brit Hadashah" in Hebrew. It means "renewed covenant." It does not mean "new" in the absolute sense. In fact Paul never used the term "new" in the absolute any time he mentions the the New Covenant. The New Covenant makes the Old obsolete in the same way that the cotton gin made deseeding cotton by hand, obsolete.

The cotton gin did not do away or replace the need to deseed cotton. Rather it provided a better means of deseeding.

In the same way, the difference between the New and Old covenants is their adiministration. The New Covenant did not do away with sacrificial system. It provided a better sacrificial system. The blood of Jesus makes the blood of animals obsolete. The system God established in the Old Testament is still in force, but it now has a better Sacrifice, better Blood and a better High Priest after the order of Melchi-Tzadak. All of that is found In Messiah.

It had no bearing on the Sabbath. The Sabbath was not done away with, or replaced. The Sabbath has always been the Messiah. For the New Covenant to "abolish" or "do away" with the Sabbath, it would have to "do away" with the Messiah.

One also needs to keep in mind that we are still in the process of seeing all of what is promised, fulfilled. The Brit Hadashah was made with Israel and Judah. There is a lot more to be done. We have not seen the complete fulfillment of this promise where Israel and Judah are concerned.

After Reading your message, I decided to go read what the commentaries had to say, and I accessed the following ones:

New Commentary on The Whole Bible, New Testament Volume 2nd Edition

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the New Testament

Barnes Notes on the New Testament

The Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament

The Teacher's Commentary

The Victor Bible Background Commentary; New Testament

I find much in them to support the way I'm saying things AND much to also support what you're saying. I would suggest that you read them too. I'd copy them here but there is far too much to copy for a place of this nature. Plus, If I were to copy and paste them, you could think I was picking and choosing, so I will only point you at them and let you come to your own conclusions. I'm sure we're probably both saying much the same but in different ways.

[Guest Logos Believer]

Since Jesus said he would build his church on Peter, the Rock, I have no problem with him being an Apostle to BOTH the Jews and Gentiles, since BOTH make up the New Church.

Since He didn't say that, you have come to the wrong conclusion

Strike 1

Mt 16:18 Now I say to you that you are Peter,

Edited March 16, 2006 by Logos Believer

[Guest shiloh357]

I find much in them to support the way I'm saying things AND much to also support what you're saying. I would suggest that you read them too. I'd copy them here but there is far too much to copy for a place of this nature. Plus, If I were to copy and paste them, you could think I was picking and choosing, so I will only point you at them and let you come to your own conclusions. I'm sure we're probably both saying much the same but in different ways.

The point I am making is that the Bible NEVER calls the Old Covenant "flawed." God cannot created a flawed or failed system. The Old Covenant was perfect, and accomplished exactly what God wanted it to. You simply cannot point to a flaw in the Old Covenant.

[Guest Logos Believer]

I find much in them to support the way I'm saying things AND much to also support what you're saying. I would suggest that you read them too. I'd copy them here but there is far too much to copy for a place of this nature. Plus, If I were to copy and paste them, you could think I was picking and choosing, so I will only point you at them and let you come to your own conclusions. I'm sure we're probably both saying much the same but in different ways.

The point I am making is that the Bible NEVER calls the Old Covenant "flawed." God cannot created a flawed or failed system. The Old Covenant was perfect, and accomplished exactly what God wanted it to. You simply cannot point to a flaw in the Old Covenant.

Actually, I can, but I'd have to use the Commentaries to support it. In fact ALL the commentaries agree with my statement that the Old Covenant was flawed, and that GOD is the one who says so. The difference between them is how it is flawed. Some point to the Priesthood, some to the Ceremonial aspects of the Law, some to the People themselves and others point to the Whole Law, so there is no concensus there to build a discussion on. Further, the statement that the old covenant is obsolete, dead on the cross and fading away (which was finished with the destruction of the Temple in 70 ad) is also universally agreed upon in ALL the Commentaries. Again, the differences all arise on why it was obsolete, what made it obsolete and why it needed changing/replacing, NOT that it was obsolete, imperfect and in need of replacing by the superior New Covenant.

But, to continue along this line would require an agreement over which Commentary(s) to use, and that would be as difficult as agreeing on what Heb 8 actually says. SO, in the interests of Peace I am prepared to back down and not pursue the issue here. I do thank you for making it necessary to actually consult those Commentaries though, it did broaden my understanding, though it doesn't change my stand. Both (in fact more than the two) views CAN be supported by them, up to the point of WHY the old needed changing, NOT that it was in need of replacing though

Thank you for your views and willingness to discuss fairly and openly. May Jesus Blessings be on you always

[Iryssa]

There is a significant flaw in the Old Covenant, which is discussed extensively in Hebrews.

1The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming

[Guest shiloh357]

There is a significant flaw in the Old Covenant, which is discussed extensively in Hebrews.

QUOTE

1The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming

[Guest yod]

I'm so Happy you're such an Accomplished Expert on God's Word, May your 'True Visions' be ever a source of wonder and Amazement for All mankind. I do hope, for your sake the Jesus agrees with YOUR views. However the Commentaries I have (many very notable ones) do disagree with many of your Conclusions. Shame they are only from mortal Man and Your opinion is from such a high standard. Maybe you should write your own commentary for publication.

Oh so much arrogance and condescention drips from your posts. I'm just giving you a taste of your own medicine. Happy to oblige, btw!

Your entire arguement is based on commentaries. Shiloh's is based on a study of the actual words used in the Bible.

You chose some commentator who lines up with your predisposed belief instead of letting the Bible speak for itself (in context of itself) and aligning yourself with that.

Your ignorance of the foundation of the New Covenant scriptures causes you to arrive on Mars when you never had to leave Earth for the truth.

I'd be glad to help you...just as Shiloh is trying...if you would stick to the Bible instead of commentaries. Anyone can find a commentary to support any position. I'd like to know how you read the Bible, not a commentary.

There is no New Covenant apart from the former Covenant. Take the pages that say "Old Testament" and "New Testament" out of your bible and throw it in the trash. God didn't write that page.

Yes, the system of atonement has been replaced but it is built upon the system which came before. Without a proper understanding of the former covenant, you will have this skewed view of the new covenant.