Remember the Sabbath

[Floatingaxe]

Paul was a Pharisee, before he became a Christian, yet he states his teaching comes by Direct Revelation of Jesus Christ, NOT his learnings as a Pharisee or a Jew!!!

That is correct! Paul knew Jesus intimately, and discovered that all his learnedness as a Pharisee got him nowhere. It's all about knowing Jesus.

[Guest shiloh357]

Paul was a Pharisee, before he became a Christian, yet he states his teaching comes by Direct Revelation of Jesus Christ, NOT his learnings as a Pharisee or a Jew!!!

That is correct! Paul knew Jesus intimately, and discovered that all his learnedness as a Pharisee got him nowhere. It's all about knowing Jesus.

Actually, his "learnedness" as a Pharisee is all over the New Testament. He even applies the Rabbinic method of a Midrash in at least two-places. What Paul said was that the Gospel itself was taught to him by the Messiah. It does not say that His learning as a Pharisee was circumvented.

Paul did not cast diparagements on His accomplishments as a Pharsisee. He simply understood that head knowledge was not comparable to knowing Christ. Paul did not become an anti-intellecutal after He got savied.

[Guest yod]

Paul was a Pharisee, before he became a Christian, yet he states his teaching comes by Direct Revelation of Jesus Christ, NOT his learnings as a Pharisee or a Jew!!!

That is correct! Paul knew Jesus intimately, and discovered that all his learnedness as a Pharisee got him nowhere. It's all about knowing Jesus.

No one is disagreeing with the statement "It's all about knowing Jesus"

The point is this:

How do you know Him apart from the context He comes from? If I tell you that you can be forgiven of all sins by faith in a greek god named Jesus would that change anything?

In other words, if just hearing His Name could tell you all you need to know then what is the point of preaching the gospel? Why did Paul teach the gentiles? What did He teach them?

Think about it. He taught Yeshua from the pages of the Law and the Prophets (Torah). These teachings were canonized as the New Covenant scriptures but apart from the context of the Torah, the New Covenant scriptures have no meaning.

And God did not put that page in your bible which says "New Testament". That one page has done more to separate christians from Israel than almost anything else in history (except for prejudices and bigotry on both sides)

.

[nanasimmons]

As Carcaptor pointed out Hebrew 10:9

" Lo, I have come to do Thy will......O God, He taketh away the First,that He may establish the Second.

The First/Old Covenant..

Hebrews 9:13

"For if the blood of bulls and of goats,and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean,sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

V.18-21 Therefore not even the First covenant was dedicated without blood.

For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water,scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people,

saying,"This is the blood of the covenant which God has commanded you."

Then like wise he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and ALL the vessels of ministry.(this would have included the Ark of The Covenant)(with the tablets of stone inside them!!)

The New/Second Covenant..

Hebrews 9:14-17

How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God,cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

And for this reason He is the Mediator of the New covenant by means of death,for the redemption of transgressions under the First Covenant,THAT those who are called may recieve the promise of the eternal inheritance.

For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

For a testament is in force after men are dead,since it has no power while the testator still lives.

As the link I posted earlier showed in..

Romans 7:1-7 You cannot be married to the First law/old covenant/husband and to the second new covenant/Christ/husband at the same time or you are committing spirital adultry. But if the first husband is dead/dies then you are free to marry another.

What law?v.7 the one that says"thou shalt not covet".(The Commands written and engraved in stones!!)

You never replied to this post..I wanted to hear your twist on these scriptures...

As for the rest of us;

I hope and pray, for their sakes, no one buys into this other gospel that they are preaching,which is not The Gospel that Paul was given by Christ.

It seems, for the most part that we have become fools for Christ,including myself.

Who, with any sense or True Intelligence can stand to hear the Scriptures be twisted,distorted, and mis-interpreted the way Yod and Shiloh and others like them have been doing?? (This is what I believe in my spirit to be true, I know that not every one will agree, but that is the truth as I see it!!) In Love..of course...

Most left Paul in the end in his day, so,are we really surprised, that they continue to do so now?? Not me..Not one bit..

Not to say that this fact doesn't greive me,because it does,very much so...I think this is why we keep trying so hard..

The thing is, while we are hopeing to open their eyes to the truth, they continue to try and keep ours closed from it..

[Guest shiloh357]

As Carcaptor pointed out Hebrew 10:9

" Lo, I have come to do Thy will......O God, He taketh away the First,that He may establish the Second.

This is not talking about the Covenants. It is talking about sacrificial systems, IF you examine the context and the line of thought. Hebrews 9 & 10 are talking specifically about the Day of Atonement. Jesus took the first sacrificial system away in order to establish the second. He says nothing about Covenants. He removed the order of Aaron in order establish the order of Melchizedek.

Romans 7:1-7 You cannot be married to the First law/old covenant/husband and to the second new covenant/Christ/husband at the same time or you are committing spirital adultry. But if the first husband is dead/dies then you are free to marry another.

What law?v.7 the one that says"thou shalt not covet".(The Commands written and engraved in stones!!)

In Paul's analogy, we are both the Husband who dies AND the wife who is married to Christ. Paul makes the point that the woman as long as she is married to her first husband is bound to the law concerning her husband. When the husband dies, she is not released only from the part of the Torah that says she cannot marry another so long as her first husband is alive. She is released ONLY from the part of the Torah concerning her first husband, and is now free to marry another in this case, the Messiah.

We are the husband according to Paul in Romans 7:4-6. We are now joined to another, namely Messiah. Now we serve in a better way namely after the Spirit, and not after the letter. This is not an abrogation or negation of the Torah, but a negation of the Old means of how the Torah was observed. The Torah did not die. We are the ones who died to it.

[Guest Logos Believer]

Paul was a Pharisee, before he became a Christian, yet he states his teaching comes by Direct Revelation of Jesus Christ, NOT his learnings as a Pharisee or a Jew!!!

That is correct! Paul knew Jesus intimately, and discovered that all his learnedness as a Pharisee got him nowhere. It's all about knowing Jesus.

No one is disagreeing with the statement "It's all about knowing Jesus"

The point is this:

How do you know Him apart from the context He comes from? If I tell you that you can be forgiven of all sins by faith in a greek god named Jesus would that change anything?

In other words, if just hearing His Name could tell you all you need to know then what is the point of preaching the gospel? Why did Paul teach the gentiles? What did He teach them?

Think about it. He taught Yeshua from the pages of the Law and the Prophets (Torah). These teachings were canonized as the New Covenant scriptures but apart from the context of the Torah, the New Covenant scriptures have no meaning.

And God did not put that page in your bible which says "New Testament". That one page has done more to separate christians from Israel than almost anything else in history (except for prejudices and bigotry on both sides)

.

No, the 300+ years separating the two put the separation between the Old and New Testaments. The Old was complete by the time Jesus was born.

And Paul used the Old Testament, the Law and Prophets to show where they pointed to Jesus as Messiah, not to point to where the Sinai Covenant was still in force. In fact he also used the Hebrew Scriptures to show where a New Covenant established by the Death and Resurrection would replace the Old Sinai Covenant. Somehow I doubt looking them up for you would do much good though. Many of them can be found in Isaiah, but something tells me that you would only fall back on telling me I'm reading them wrong.

Sadly, I've already been where you are in many ways. While the reasons I fell for didn't ascribe it to "jewish history" and "post theological deceptions", I also have been down the 'garden path' of a mixing of the Covenants. All the 'proofs' of the "perpetual covenant", the "eternal sabbath founded at creation". All the logical deceptions. Even to the point of believing in the Annual Holy Days, the Dietary Laws, the whole nine yards. Pretty much, everything except the animal sacrifices if one thinks about it.

Thankfully God woke me up one day, cleared my mind and showed me the truth. Not through post theology, or the works of others, as you seem to think, but by opening my mind to see what He truly meant. The clarity that came from that encounter with Him didn't come from the Devil or the Greeks either, it was from Jesus Christ opening my eyes. I once believed a lot of what you preach, but happily I now know better. Tis a shame I don't know how to speak better or how to break through the veil you are behind better. I pray God opens your eyes one day too. There are two separate and distinct Covenants, and Jesus was the Master of BOTH. But, before I start another debate, I will stop there.

[Guest shiloh357]

No, the 300+ years separating the two put the separation between the Old and New Testaments. The Old was complete by the time Jesus was born.

And Paul used the Old Testament, the Law and Prophets to show where they pointed to Jesus as Messiah, not to point to where the Sinai Covenant was still in force. In fact he also used the Hebrew Scriptures to show where a New Covenant established by the Death and Resurrection would replace the Old Sinai Covenant. Somehow I doubt looking them up for you would do much good though. Many of them can be found in Isaiah, but something tells me that you would only fall back on telling me I'm reading them wrong.

Sadly, I've already been where you are in many ways. While the reasons I fell for didn't ascribe it to "jewish history" and "post theological deceptions", I also have been down the 'garden path' of a mixing of the Covenants. All the 'proofs' of the "perpetual covenant", the "eternal sabbath founded at creation". All the logical deceptions. Even to the point of believing in the Annual Holy Days, the Dietary Laws, the whole nine yards. Pretty much, everything except the animal sacrifices if one thinks about it.

Thankfully God woke me up one day, cleared my mind and showed me the truth. Not through post theology, or the works of others, as you seem to think, but by opening my mind to see what He truly meant. The clarity that came from that encounter with Him didn't come from the Devil or the Greeks either, it was from Jesus Christ opening my eyes. I once believed a lot of what you preach, but happily I now know better. Tis a shame I don't know how to speak better or how to break through the veil you are behind better. I pray God opens your eyes one day too. There are two separate and distinct Covenants, and Jesus was the Master of BOTH. But, before I start another debate, I will stop there.

There is no such thing as "mixing the covenants. That alone shows that you really don't understand the Messianic understanding of the Scripture.

[Guest Logos Believer]

There is no such thing as "mixing the covenants. That alone shows that you really don't understand the Messianic understanding of the Scripture.

I notice that you always drop in was some venomous remark attempting to show the 'superiority' of your view, but very little to back it up with.

My first comment is; you have a nasty record of resorting to venomous retorts instead of Scriptural support, on this thread anyway, so if you can't be civil and Christian, I'd just as soon not hear from you or deal with you

My second comment is this. Prove to me, FROM SCRIPTURE, without resorting to support from outside of Scripture, that your belief in only ONE Covenant is True. PROVE it completely. That also includes proving that all the statements in scripture mentioning 2 Covenants don't really mean what they say the mean. From there you can then state that there is no mixing of the Covenants by various religious groups. No Hype, no getting off track, no personal attacks or venomous retorts. Just simple basic Scripture. YOU can add your comments explaining why you think the scriptures support your view, but no outside sources. I hope that isn't too big a task for one so wise and knowing. If you can't do that, then you can't prove your above statement, and you prove that you have no understanding of Scripture, Messianic or otherwise. So far, all I've seen from you is vehement personal attacks and venomous remarks. hardly the mark of a Christian.

[Guest shiloh357]

I notice that you always drop in was some venomous remark attempting to show the 'superiority' of your view, but very little to back it up with.

My first comment is; you have a nasty record of resorting to venomous retorts instead of Scriptural support, on this thread anyway, so if you can't be civil and Christian, I'd just as soon not hear from you or deal with you

I have said nothing that was out of line in this thread. My criticisms of some "retorts" and false accusations by others, were warranted and deserved. I make no apologies for it.

My second comment is this. Prove to me, FROM SCRIPTURE, without resorting to support from outside of Scripture, that your belief in only ONE Covenant is True. PROVE it completely. That also includes proving that all the statements in scripture mentioning 2 Covenants don't really mean what they say the mean. From there you can then state that there is no mixing of the Covenants by various religious groups. No Hype, no getting off track, no personal attacks or venomous retorts. Just simple basic Scripture. YOU can add your comments explaining why you think the scriptures support your view, but no outside sources. I hope that isn't too big a task for one so wise and knowing. If you can't do that, then you can't prove your above statement, and you prove that you have no understanding of Scripture, Messianic or otherwise. So far, all I've seen from you is vehement personal attacks and venomous remarks. hardly the mark of a Christian.

The problem starting off, and Yod already pointed this out, is that you haven't taken the time to understand our position. Instead you and nanasimmons have already assigned your values to our position. You have already determined apart from every explanation that has been offered what our position is. Case in point, the assertion that we are mixing covenants, which is completely absurd. The problem in debating with you, is that your arguments are based upon pre-conceived, subjective notions that you have assigned to us and we first have to convince you that we are not saying what you seem to think we are saying.

Secondly, there is no one here advocating only ONE covenant. I don't know where you got that notion, but it is complete misreading of what has been said. The New Covenant is a renewal of God's covenenant relationship with Israel.

"Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."

(Jeremiah 31:31-34)

The term "New Covenant" is Brit Hadashah. It does not mean "new" in the aboslute sense. It refers to a refreshing, a renewal. It is God renewing His covenant relationship with Israel and Judah. This covenant will not be like the one that was broken. There will stark differences. God says of Israel and Judah, that He will put his law within them and write it on their hearts. It is New Covenant, not a new Torah. We see other thing about this New Covenant that will take place such as the establishment of a new order of Priesthood. The Messiah Himself removes the first Priesthood, the first sacrificial system and replaces it with the order of Melchizedek.

This is what is meant in Hebrews:

Then I said, 'Behold, I have come to do your will, O God, as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.'" When he said above, "You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings" (these are offered according to the law), then he added, "Behold, I have come to do your will." He abolishes the first in order to establish the second. And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

(Hebrews 10:7-10) The context and line of thought within passage has to do with the sacrificial system, not the Old and New Covenants. The book of Hebrews in this part is dealing with the role of the High Priest on Yom Kippur, and the writer of Hebrews is demonstrating the superiority of the Messiah as High Priest as opposed to the Aaronic order. One of the starkest examples of this superiority is that Levitical High Priest had to offer a sacrifice for Himself in order to be fit to offer the sin offering for Israel. Yet, that aspect is completely missing from this description of Jesus as High Priest. Jesus offered Himself, He did not have to be purified, but was already pure.

He abolished the Old Priesthood and established the New Priesthood and it is in by that New Priesthood of Messiah that we have been sanctified through the offering of Himself, once and for all. That is all that passage is saying. Those who apply it to the first and second covenants are using very poor hermeneutics to do so.

[nanasimmons]

Hermeneutics"

from the greek hermeneuo "to interpret or translate (from the messenger of the gods,Hermes), is the theory and practice of interpretation, originally the interpretation of texts,especially religious texts...???????

No,thank you,none of that for me, thanks anyways!!

I will take my usual dose of Holy Spirit interpretations over "Hermes" any and every day..