Qnts2

Let's start very simply with the Mosaic covenant given first at Mt. Sinai. That covenant was given to the children of Israel, not the Church and not Gentiles. When dealing with the New Testament, at first, the New Covenant was offered to Israel, which was under the Mosaic covenant prior to the New Covenant. Jesus, born a Jew, was born obligated to the Mosaic covenant. Therefore by the Mosaic covenant, Jesus was obligated to the Mosaic law as a Jew, so it should be absolutely no surprise that Jesus observed the Mosaic law as a Jew. That would not give any hint that the Mosaic law carried forward into the New Covenant, which was already prophesied to be different then the Mosaic covenant. Since Jesus died to establish the New Covenant, that further establishes that He was no longer under the Mosaic covenant since death is the end of any obligation to the Mosaic covenant. Jesus had fulfilled the Mosaic law by observing it perfectly while living until death. The Mosaic covenant was not written on our heart when accepting Jesus. The law written on hearts is the Holy Spirit guiding us into the New Covenant, which is not the Mosaic covenant. When Paul lived, the Temple was in existance with the Priesthood and the law of Jerusalem was the Mosaic law. Paul as a Jewish person was to obey the laws of the land (Jerusalem). All Jewish people who lived in Jerusalem or while visiting Jerusalem had to obey the laws of Jerusalem. The Mosaic law set up a government and court system, from the Mosaic covenant, so in Jerusalem the law in Jerusalem was the Mosaic law while the Priesthood, Temple and court system existed (as granted by the Roman empire). The best way to explain this might be, while visiting England from the U.S., a visitor has to observe the required laws of England as a visitor, not the U.S. laws. The laws in Jerusalem applied to Jewish people, with only a small subset applying to Gentiles. Gentile Christians were not obligated to the full set of the laws of Jerusalem. Some thought Gentile Christians should be circumcised, becoming Jews and obligated to the full law, but there are sufficient evidence of the opposition of Gentile Christians becoming circumcised. The Mosaic covenant is not divisible, so as soon as you eliminate ritual circumcision, you have altered the Mosaic covenant, which is a second violation of the law,and on and on. In the Mosaic covenant, a Jewish people was not to marry a Gentile. If the Mosaic law was still in effect in the New Covenant, no Jewish person could marry a Gentile, and by extension no Gentile could marry a Jewish person without violating the Mosaic law. Yet the New Covenant as expressed in the New Testament states a person should marry a person of like spirit, altering the Mosaic covenant and therefore making the New Covenant different and not the same laws or covenant.

I disagree with about 90% of what you wrote, beginning with the assumption that Israel was divorced at the time of the golden calf and that the second set of commandments is a 'renewed covenant', etc. etc. etc. As far as the Mosaic feasts, not all shadows/feasts have been fulfilled so not all feasts are yet included. During the millenium, all feasts have been fulfilled and are celebrated in memory of what Jesus did. Christians do not refuse to celebrate the fulfilled feasts. Historically, at the council of Nicea, to separate Christians from Jews (as some at the council were anti-semitic), changes were made so that the celebration of the feasts would not coincide with the celebration of the feasts by the Jewish people. The names were also changed. Easter would be Passover and the first fruits wave offering. Pentacost would be Shavuot. So, I do not see it as at all true that Christians refuse to celebrate the spring feasts. I often teach Christians about Passover etc, and Christians are enthusiastic about learning about Jesus and the feasts.

There are more covenants then just the Mosaic and New. We don't have a lot of information about the other covenants but we have some information. Certain laws are repeated in multiple of the covenants. For example, we know that there was a prohibition against murder in the post-Eden covenant, the post flood Noah covenant, and the New Covenant. The repeat of not commiting murder reappearing in those covenants does not mean those covenants are the same. Another law repeated in all covenants is loving and obeying God. Each covenant is a contract. One can not be involved in a contract given to other people and each contract is complete, individual. The repeat of any individual command is an indication that God saw a need to include that law every time but that does not mean that God duplicated in it's entirety any covenant into another covenant. As far as the Holy days, it is quickly found that the Holy days are 'shadows' pointing to Jesus. Jesus died on Passover and 'fulfilled' that shadow/prophetic meaning pointing to Jesus. Passover is then moved into the New Covenant in remembrance of Jesus unlike the Mosaic covenant which is in remembrance of God redeeming Israel from bondage in Egypt. Each of the Holy days comes forward with a new meaning. All having been fulfilled by the millenium.

The error is in grammar. In Jeremiah 31:31, the word is Chadashah. Chadashah is the feminine form reflecting the word Brit which is feminine. Chadashah is an adjective which means new, never renewed. In Psalm 51:10, the word is Chadesh which is a verb. The word is a verb and means renewed. Since Jeremiah 31:31 is an adjective and not a verb, the same is not true. They are two different works. It is improper to translate the adjective as renewed and no knowledgable Hebrew scholar would ever translate Chadashah as renewed. Chadashah can not be renew or repair as chadashah is not a verb. Another point. Adjectives do not have roots. Verbs have roots so when you refer to the root, you are referring to a verb. Hebrew verbs have many grammatical forms which follow certain conventions. The root of a verb is simply an expression as either prefixes or suffixes are added and the root is never actually used as a verb so chadash is never actually a word used as a verb, but is an aid in grammar. In Jeremiah 31:31, the correct translation is New Covenant. All Jewish translations from Hebrew to English correctly translate it as New Covenant. All Christian translations which are reputable and done by Christian Hebrew scholars, translate it as New Covenant. In Jewish commentaries, highly knowledgable Rabbi's have debated Jeremiah 31:31. Accepting unanimously that it says New Covenant.

I am still working on cleaning out the house. We are selling it in about 2 weeks.

Agreed. Someone who does not know Hebrew did a very bad interpretation ignoring Hebrew grammar to promoted the wrong statement that the New Covenant/Testament is not really new but is renewed. The totally confused two different words. But use their misinterpretation to try to bring the Mosaic law into the New Covenant.

I have not read the entire thread so please forgive me if this is a repeat. Having grown up in a home which observed the Mosaic law, I am well familiar with law keeping. My family was not Christian and we knew almost nothing about Jesus but we were serious law keepers. (For those who do not know, the so called 10 commandments are part of the Mosaic law given at Mt. Sinai). No where in the 'old testament'/Tenach, is eternal salvation promised. Eternal salvation only comes by grace through faith in Jesus. Knowing many many people who also observed the Law, I came to realize that some new they were not perfect law keepers. Others (most) were proud of the law that they kept while ignoring their failures and just assuming the merciful God would forgive them. The more devout they were at keeping the law, the prouder they were thinking God was impressed at their effort and that they were more righteous then most. When I became a Christian, I invited some over to my house for a High Holy day, and was questioned about keeping the law. Yet, I observed that in many ways the Church had more laws with the same result. Those who followed the Christian laws were proud of their obedience and living like a Christian should. They looked down on those who even admitted struggles with what was considered sin (some was sin but other Christian laws were more traditions). So, is Christianity and the Christian life doing things to appear holy or is there something else. And what is the difference between those who observe biblical laws and Christians? The bible says when we are born again, the law is written on our hearts. That happens when believers are indwelt by the Holy Spirit. Hebrews 8:10 “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel After those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws into their minds, And I will write them on their hearts. And I will be their God, And they shall be My people. Romans 7:6 But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter. Gal 5:22-23But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. Note: Self-control is a fruit of the Spirit, and not something we do to control ourselves. It is a fruit which the Holy Spirit teaches or grows as Christians mature.

Front Page Magazine is absolutely wrong about Soros being a Nazi collaborator. Soros was sent by his Jewish father to live with a gentile, in an attempt to save George's life. At no point did Soros collaborate with the Nazi's but instead, was forced to deliver a message to some Jewish people to show up at a certain location. Soro's delivered the hand messages and then verbally warned the Jewish people not to show up as they were to be hauled to the concentration camps. So, the very young Soro's living in Nazi territory worked against the Nazi's. The Jewish people who grew up in Nazi Germany were taught that they were the lowest of the low, and many came out ashamed of being Jewish or having learned to hide that they were Jewish. Some never recovered from that torment and others took years and years.

I agree. If at all possible, get a second opinion. But, sometimes the action taken must be very fast. ( just a quick disclaimer, I am not a physician or a nurse. About 20 years ago, I thought my husband had sleep apnea. We went to his doctor and I described what I observed. The doctors response was, 'that is interesting, if you notice anything else, let me know.' Over the next few months, I recorded my observations but the doctor never said anything more then 'interesting'. I started to research sleep apnea, and found out that the Mayo clinic had done much of the initial research, so I called them and asked for copies of the research papers and papers on various treatments and effectiveness. I got a huge pile, and sat with a dictionary to understand the medical terminology. I also found a clinic in a neighboring state and called them but they said they needed a referral. To keep this from being a long story, I finally got my husband the test and treatment, but since that time, I now do some research and don't just let things go.)

That is correct for pre-eclampsia unless it is severe. In a severe case, bed rest, medications or a lengthy hospital stay does not releave the potential for death. The only 'cure' is to end the pregnancy. If the baby is not viable outside of the womb, inducing birth means the baby dies. https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/000899.htm Eclampsia <span class="js-disabled-message">To use the sharing features on this page, please enable JavaScript.</span> Eclampsia is seizures (convulsions) in a pregnant woman. These seizures are not related to an existing brain condition. Causes Expand Section Doctors do not know exactly what causes eclampsia. Factors that may play a role include: Blood vessel problems Brain and nervous system (neurological) factors Diet Genes Eclampsia follows a condition called preeclampsia. This is a serious complication of pregnancy in which a woman has high blood pressure and very rapid weight gain. Most women with preeclampsia do not go on to have seizures. It is hard to predict which women will. Women at high risk of seizures have severe preeclampsia with findings such as: Abnormal blood tests Headaches Very high blood pressure Vision changes Your chance of getting preeclampsia increases when: You are 35 or older You are African American This is your first pregnancy You have diabetes, high blood pressure, or kidney disease You are having more than one baby (such as twins or triplets) You are a teen Symptoms Expand Section Symptoms of eclampsia include: Muscle aches and pains Seizures Severe agitation Unconsciousness Symptoms of preeclampsia include: Gaining more than 2 pounds a week Headaches Nausea and vomiting Stomach pain Swelling of the hands and face Vision problems Treatment Expand Section The main treatment to prevent severe preeclampsia from progressing to eclampsia is giving birth to the baby. Letting the pregnancy go on can be dangerous for you and the baby. You may be given medicine to prevent seizures. These medicines are called anticonvulsants. Your doctor may prescribe medicine to lower high blood pressure. If your blood pressure stays high, delivery may be needed, even if it is before the baby is due. Possible Complications Expand Section Women with eclampsia or preeclampsia have a higher risk of: Separation of the placenta (placenta abruptio) Premature delivery that leads to complications in the baby Blood clotting problems

I agree, preeclampsia is treated in many ways. Unless it is a severe case, which can develop into eclampsia. There is only one way to prevent the deadly outcome and that is terminating the pregnancy. If the baby is not close enough to full term, the result of terminating the pregnancy will mean the death of the baby. There are many different methods of doing an abortion. I will go to Mirriam Webster: Abortion: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: a : spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation — compare miscarriage b : induced expulsion of a human fetus Both 1 and 3 match the process used to treat severe preeclampsia. 1 indicates an abortion is the termination of a pregnancy but the timing of the death of the baby can be before, during or after. 3 is the induced expulsion which is what occurs when the pregnancy must be terminated due to severe preeclampsia. If the baby is not viable, the induced expulsion will result in the death of the baby.

An ectopic pregnancy is not an abortion because the location of the baby is in the fallopian tubes. An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy where the baby is in the uterus. Since the location is different, the name and process is different. One involves the removing of the fallopian tube. The other involves the termination of the pregnancy. While there are other issues which can lead to the risk of death of the mother, the best example in my view is that of preeclampsia. Preeclampsia is directly related or caused by being pregnant and the only way to 'cure' preeclampsia is to terminate the pregnancy. If extreme preeclamsia occurs prior to a gestation of 20 weeks, the baby is almost never viable, and waiting is risking the death of the mother. Of course if the mother dies before the baby is viable, the baby also dies. Abortion, the termination of a pregnancy, is sometimes the only option.

Except, you are simply denying that there are medical issues which lead to the death of the mother which can not be resolved without terminating the pregnancy. I gave a short list. There are more. But, the fact they exist is an inconvenient truth for you.

You were demanding the death of the mother by saying abortion should be 100% illegal with no exceptions. If the mother will die due to the pregnancy and other health issues being exacerbated , and I have already listed the complications which would cause that to happen, and abortion is 100% illegal, no exceptions, by law, you are demanding the pregnancy continue which will cause the death of the mother. Simple logic.

You missed my view. I am against abortion, except, I would allow an abortion to save the life of the mother. So, my belief would reduce the number of abortions by perhaps 99%. When it comes to choosing the life of the mother vs. the life of the baby, I do not believe we can deny a person the choice about who dies. Therefore, as a medical procedure to save a life, I think it should remain a legal option. And you are right. If the baby is 20 weeks, or more, labor can be induced or there can be a caesarean section, but if the mother can not survive to the 20 week mark or the health of the other is irreparably damaged by waiting for the 20 week mark, I still believe the law should not dictate whose life is there to be an attempt to save. There are indeed recorded instances of mothers dying in child birth and those numbers are rising. There are indeed recorded instances of mothers getting abortions to save their lives.