Does the new covenant affirm or deny the OT?

[Locoponydirtman]

Do y'all do this too?

Leviticus 23:24 - On resting on Rosh HaShannah (Head of Year).
Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, In the seventh month, in the first day of the month, shall ye have a sabbath, a memorial of blowing of trumpets, an holy convocation.
164 Leviticus 16:29 - On fasting on Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement).
And this shall be a statute for ever unto you: that in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, ye shall afflict your souls, and do no work at all, whether it be one of your own country, or a stranger that sojourneth among you:
165 Leviticus 16:29 - On resting on Yom Kippur.
And this shall be a statute for ever unto you: that in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, ye shall afflict your souls, and do no work at all, whether it be one of your own country, or a stranger that sojourneth among you:
166 Leviticus 23:35 - On resting on the first day of Sukkot.
On the first day shall be an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein.
167 Leviticus 23:36 - On resting on (the 8th day) Shemini Atzeret.
Seven days ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD: on the eighth day shall be an holy convocation unto you; and ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD: it is a solemn assembly; and ye shall do no servile work therein.
168 Leviticus 23:42 - On dwelling in a Sukkah (Booths) for seven days.
Ye shall dwell in booths seven days; all that are Israelites born shall dwell in booths:
169 Leviticus 23:40 - On taking a Lulav (the four species) on Sukkot.
And ye shall take you on the first day the boughs of goodly trees, branches of palm trees, and the boughs of thick trees, and willows of the brook; and ye shall rejoice before the LORD your God seven days.
170 Numbers 29:1 - On hearing the sound of the Shofar on Rosh HaShannah (Head of Year).
And in the seventh month, on the first day of the month, ye shall have an holy convocation; ye shall do no servile work: it is a day of blowing the trumpets unto you.

 

[Locoponydirtman]

Oh and you don't wear fabrics of mixed materials either. No poly cotton weave for you.

 

[gb9]

they think the law is divided into multiple parts, with some not being in effect and some are for gentile Christ followers .

the things you listed above, they do not consider them part of the still in effect laws.

I mean, when you have a make-it-up-as-you-go- theology, you can mix and match and rearrange Scripture, as they do...

 

[Deade]

Do y'all do this too?

Hey Locoponydirtman, do not worry yourself as to what we do to please God. We don't. We simply obey Him and keep His Commandments.

Let me ask you, what commandments did Abraham keep? Gen. 26:5 "Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws."

Also, what commandments will God write on people's minds and hearts? Jer. 31:33 "But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people."

Heb 10:16 “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws on their hearts, and write them on their minds,”

 

[Locoponydirtman]

Hey Locoponydirtman, do not worry yourself as to what we do to please God. We don't. We simply obey Him and keep His Commandments.

Let me ask you, what commandments did Abraham keep? Gen. 26:5 "Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws."

Also, what commandments will God write on people's minds and hearts? Jer. 31:33 "But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people."

Heb 10:16 “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws on their hearts, and write them on their minds,”

I agree. My point is that all these legalists that claim that they keep the law actually do not, because if we fail in any part of the law we fail in the whole law. So if you are one of these guys who insist that the Gospel of Christ I not our Sabbath , but that we have to go to church on Saturday only, but you don't fringe your children's clothes and put a blue ribbon about the fringe then you have broken both.

 

[Locoponydirtman]

they think the law is divided into multiple parts, with some not being in effect and some are for gentile Christ followers .

the things you listed above, they do not consider them part of the still in effect laws.

I mean, when you have a make-it-up-as-you-go- theology, you can mix and match and rearrange Scripture, as they do...

I think I will hold to what is written in Hebrews, and Corinthians, and Romans, and to Timothy , that the old is gone and the new is hear, because the old was a shadow of Christ to come, but he has come, and is indwelling us by his spirit the Holy Spirit.

 

[Whispered]

i could tell you didn't write it

As was intended by the article title being linked before the article itself. Is the Sabbath a Ceremonial Law or Moral Law?

Dino's right, tho - the Bible doesn't speak of the law as being separated into moral/civil/ceremonial categories at all. that's a modern human invention used to try & justify subjecting the believer to parts of the law while not under all of it. that presupposition is clear from the very first sentence of the website you copy-pasted, and Dino, knowing that's error, has good reasons not to bother reading the rest. [/quote] No, Dino is not correct. Nor shall either of you be for as long as you think you do not need to research Apologetics, Soteriology, Exegesis, or other discipline in Bible studies, so as to know more than what you already, and sometimes incorrectly, believe you know just reading the scriptures alone. "Study to show thyself approved..."
What is Halakhah?

i did, tho - and it's worth pointing out one of the places where whoever wrote the website you pasted into this thread contradicts himself/herself.

I think you imagine I tried to present the article as my own work and that is why you keep repeating yourself in that way. That is intellectually dishonest given that the article title and the link to that source was the first thing presented after my own personal remarks.

We have nothing else to discuss. Your objections to the content are not credible. The ten commandments of God preceded Moses, they are not the laws of Moses, they are the 10 commands of God. There is a difference.

 

[Whispered]

Repeating yourself is quite unnecessary. As this is an open forum, you have no business telling me what my business is.

Oh, but I do when you make it your business to make what is a false "caution" toward me concerning Heresy.
And after you claim you didn't read the article I posted. Then take issue with certain points in the article. And especially when you say this: "So, perhaps you should be a little more cautious before slinging around words like "heresy". "

I do not need to be cautious because I did not write the article.

The article that was impossible to miss as a copy and paste, because the article title was posted first and linked to the original source.
Therefore, I need not be cautious about anything related to someone elses intellectual property as I do not edit their work.

 

[Whispered]

Hey Locoponydirtman, do not worry yourself as to what we do to please God. We don't. We simply obey Him and keep His Commandments.

Let me ask you, what commandments did Abraham keep? Gen. 26:5 "Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws."

Also, what commandments will God write on people's minds and hearts? Jer. 31:33 "But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people."

Heb 10:16 “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws on their hearts, and write them on their minds,”

"When you are being mocked by scandalous hearts, the truth of God in Christ shall not penetrate that which berates you first, and then blasphemes using the words of God as their weapon." Anthony Q.

 

[Dino246]

Oh, but I do when you make it your business to make what is a false "caution" toward me concerning Heresy.
And after you claim you didn't read the article I posted. Then take issue with certain points in the article. And especially when you say this: "So, perhaps you should be a little more cautious before slinging around words like "heresy". "

I do not need to be cautious because I did not write the article.

The article that was impossible to miss as a copy and paste, because the article title was posted first and linked to the original source.
Therefore, I need not be cautious about anything related to someone elses intellectual property as I do not edit their work.

Here is a verbatim quote from your post: "There are some who claim that the Lord's Sabbath is a ceremonial law and they go to complicated extremes to try and prove this heresy."

If those were not your words, then you used them without noting that they were from the article, with something like, "Here's an excerpt."

 

[Whispered]

Here is a verbatim quote from your post: "There are some who claim that the Lord's Sabbath is a ceremonial law and they go to complicated extremes to try and prove this heresy."

If those were not your words, then you used them without noting that they were from the article, with something like, "Here's an excerpt."

No, once more and lastly, those are not my words. They are a verbatim excerpt from the article I posted in full.
Let me help you with how excerpts and full article sharing, with permission, works.

An excerpt in my posts is demarcated with, "excerpt". Sometimes I omit that and use the universal excerpt of, ...."the excerpted material is then pasted between the quotation marks. Key word there. Quotation marks."

You have no case. I think you simply like to argue, or you have difficulty admitting when you are wrong. And rude. And sadly, are not forthcoming with an apology, but instead feel the need to continue as before.

You are still wrong. And you still have no case.
This is why. When I post a full article, either under the permission of "fair use", or with permission of the author themselves, I put a link to the article/source, behind the article title that precedes said article. At times, so as to save a reader from scrolling up, I post the source link at the bottom as well.
My intention is to help with deeper studies of scripture. Which is why I share Apologetics material.

If you paid attention rather than readied to take issue you'd see this in the matter you're addressing yet again.

Here it is copied in short form and pasted for your edification: Note the source link behind the article title itself. There is no excerpt, nor any notation required, when the entire article is posted for review.
My post #72

Is the Sabbath a Ceremonial Law or Moral Law?

It seems today that many cannot tell the difference between what God wrote in stone and what Moses wrote in a book. There are some who claim that the Lord's Sabbath is a ceremonial law and they go to complicated extremes to try and prove this heresy. But the truth does not have to be complicated and so we are going to keep this simple so that the wise will have no trouble seeing how our adversary has once again set out to deceive many on this precious Commandment about quality time with God on His Holy day.


There is nothing more to discuss. If you don't wish to apologize for your misunderstanding and accusation, that you're repeating here, that's your issue. However, I will not revisit something that was never an issue in the first place. If you like to fight, join a boxing gym, in the meantime, do not target me. It is not appreciated and it is not an example of the civil manner a Christian should example in public. Or private.

 

[Dino246]

No, once more and lastly, those are not my words. They are a verbatim excerpt from the article I posted in full.
Let me help you with how excerpts and full article sharing, with permission, works.

An excerpt in my posts is demarcated with, "excerpt". Sometimes I omit that and use the universal excerpt of, ...."the excerpted material is then pasted between the quotation marks. Key word there. Quotation marks."

You have no case. I think you simply like to argue, or you have difficulty admitting when you are wrong. And rude. And sadly, are not forthcoming with an apology, but instead feel the need to continue as before.

You are still wrong. And you still have no case.

Your post has no prefatory comments, no title, no quotation marks and nowhere does the word "excerpt" appear. There is nothing to indicate that it is a quotation from the article you linked, so despite your verbose explanation of how citations work, it is you who has no case.

Next time, kindly make clear which are your words and which are quotations, and save the self-righteous preaching for the mirror.

 

[posthuman]

Nor shall either of you be for as long as you think you do not need to research Apologetics, Soteriology, Exegesis, or other discipline in Bible studies, so as to know more than what you already, and sometimes incorrectly, believe you know just reading the scriptures alone. "Study to show thyself approved..."

what on earth makes you think that either i or Dino never do any research? why in the world would you accuse us of having never studied? you got some basis for that?

Your objections to the content are not credible.

how about instead of declaring that by fiat on your own authority, you actually address at least one of the points i made about the article? as it is you're just taking petty personal snipes and declaring what i wrote - which was exegetical - wrong on no other basis but 'because you say so' -- an argument which is neither convincing nor useful.

for example:

The ceremonial law on the other hand was given to Moses by God and was written by Moses on parchment in a book (Deuteronomy 31:24) and was stored on the outside of the Ark of the Covenant (Deuteronomy 31:26) to be a witness against the Israelite people. Hence it was also called the Mosaic Law or the law of Moses since it was written by him. This law is also called the sacrificial law as it was added because of sin and was practiced when one sinned before Jesus replaced this sacrificial law on the cross when He became our final sacrifice ending the need for this law. Thus the Mosaic Law only was nailed to the cross. See were the Ten Commandments nailed to the cross.

So basically we have the moral law which defines love and the character of God and the ceremonial law that was added because God's moral law was transgressed. (1 John 3:4) Now to state the obvious, if the Lord's Sabbath had been a ceremonial law then it would have been practiced when one sinned before the cross but the Sabbath of the Lord was never practiced because of sin. It would also had to have been written by Moses in his book of the law, but not so.

you know a couple of things that are not part of the decalogue?
Deuteronomy 6 & Leviticus 19 -- wherein it is written, you shall love the LORD your God, and you shall love your neighbor as yourself.
these are what Jesus Christ says are the greatest commandments upon which 'all the law and the prophets' are founded -- the basis of all the law is not the 10 commandments.
the article you put calls all the things outside of the decalogue en masse 'sacrificial' and 'ceremonial' and implies that all of it was practiced 'because of sin' -- saying it's 'obvious' that sabbath wasn't kept because of sin, therefore it's not ceremonial. obvious question: is love the Lord with all your heart practiced because of sin? is love your neighbor as yourself practiced because of sin? so are they 'ceremonial' ?

Ceremonial: marked by, involved in, or belonging to ceremony : stressing careful attention to form and detail
((Merriam Webster))

does sabbath observance under the law of the Sinai covenant given through Moses stress careful attention to form and detail?
YUP

Civic : of or relating to a citizen, a city, citizenship, or community affairs
((Merriam Webster))

does sabbath observance under the law of the Sinai covenant given through Moses relate to community affairs and relate to citizenship?
YUP

Moral: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior, expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior
((Merriam Webster))

does sabbath observance under the law of the Sinai covenant given through Moses express or teach a conception of right behavior?
YUP

so if you could do something edifying, maybe you could show us how this 'ceremonial/civic/moral' distinction is not an arbitrary human projection onto the holy writ, and prove that sabbath is 100% moral code with no civil regulation or ceremonial aspect of observance? that'd be great! it would be like we are having an actual Bible discussion! thanks!

 

[reneweddaybyday]

What did change, and it is a worldwide revolution, is that we are no longer saved by works but by faith in Jesus Christ. and HIS redeeming work.

Who was saved by works? Salvation has always been by faith. Believers in Old Covenant were saved by faith. Believers in New Covenant are saved by faith. There is one faith (Eph 4:5) throughout the whole span of time from Adam to present to future.

The purpose of the law was to expose the utter inability of mankind to keep the law. The law points to our need for Messiah. Believers in OC looked forward to the coming Messiah and were saved through faith in Messiah. Believers in NC are saved through faith in the same Messiah.

Hebrews 11 tells us of OC believers who walked in faith. Those believers are set out as examples for us so that we do not become discouraged in our own walks of faith. At the end of the chapter, we are told:

Hebrews 11:

39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:

40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.


They obtained a good report through faith. The good report was not received through any good work on their part.

What "promise" was not received by OC believers? They did not see Messiah.

Yet they continued in faith despite what they faced in their lives. We also have not "seen" Messiah with our eyes, but we reap the benefit of His having come, His having laid His life down on the cross, His having been resurrected from the dead, His ascension into the heavenly Holy of holies, and His having sent the promise of the Father (Acts 1:4), our Comforter.

What does it mean that they were not made perfect? It means the OC believers could not be made complete until the coming of Messiah. They looked forward to Messiah, we look back at Messiah – and enjoy all the blessings of His having come.

Understanding we have "some better thing" provided for us, how ought we to live our lives? Looking at the faith of all the believers who came before, it is a witness to us of how we can stand fast in our faith seeing we have that "some better thing". Then read the very next verse to see how we are to live our lives and to Whom we are to look to in helping us overcome our daily trials:

Hebrews 12:

1 Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,

2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

3 For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds.

 

[PS]

Who was saved by works? Salvation has always been by faith. Believers in Old Covenant were saved by faith. Believers in New Covenant are saved by faith. There is one faith (Eph 4:5) throughout the whole span of time from Adam to present to future.

The purpose of the law was to expose the utter inability of mankind to keep the law. The law points to our need for Messiah. Believers in OC looked forward to the coming Messiah and were saved through faith in Messiah. Believers in NC are saved through faith in the same Messiah.

Hebrews 11 tells us of OC believers who walked in faith. Those believers are set out as examples for us so that we do not become discouraged in our own walks of faith. At the end of the chapter, we are told:

Hebrews 11:

39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:

40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.


They obtained a good report through faith. The good report was not received through any good work on their part.

What "promise" was not received by OC believers? They did not see Messiah.

Yet they continued in faith despite what they faced in their lives. We also have not "seen" Messiah with our eyes, but we reap the benefit of His having come, His having laid His life down on the cross, His having been resurrected from the dead, His ascension into the heavenly Holy of holies, and His having sent the promise of the Father (Acts 1:4), our Comforter.

What does it mean that they were not made perfect? It means the OC believers could not be made complete until the coming of Messiah. They looked forward to Messiah, we look back at Messiah – and enjoy all the blessings of His having come.

Understanding we have "some better thing" provided for us, how ought we to live our lives? Looking at the faith of all the believers who came before, it is a witness to us of how we can stand fast in our faith seeing we have that "some better thing". Then read the very next verse to see how we are to live our lives and to Whom we are to look to in helping us overcome our daily trials:

Hebrews 12:

1 Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,

2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

3 For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds.

Nobody is saved by works, but apparently some people seem to think they have to earn salvation by good works and obeying Old Testament law. They are wrong. The New Testament tells us we are saved by faith, and that is the difference between the Old and New covenants.

 

[reneweddaybyday]

Nobody is saved by works, but apparently some people seem to think they have to earn salvation by good works and obeying Old Testament law. They are wrong. The New Testament tells us we are saved by faith, and that is the difference between the Old and New covenants.

What is this "difference between the Old and New covenants"?

If under OC, believers were saved by faith ... and ... under NC, believers are saved by faith ...

where is there any difference?

Thank you for your patience with me ... sometimes it is difficult to get the point across when communicating through keyboards. appreciate your taking time to explain.

 

[PS]

What is this "difference between the Old and New covenants"?

If under OC, believers were saved by faith ... and ... under NC, believers are saved by faith ...

where is there any difference?

Thank you for your patience with me ... sometimes it is difficult to get the point across when communicating through keyboards. appreciate your taking time to explain.

Even the Old Testament patriarchs were saved by faith and not by works. The trouble is people today seem to think they have to obey Old Testament law to be saved and that is incorrect. So in the New Testament, as in life, the law is of no avail.

 

[reneweddaybyday]

So in the New Testament, as in life, the law is of no avail.

Rom 7:12 tells us the law is holy and just and good.

What the law cannot do, and what the law was never designed to do, is make us holy. Why? Because of the weakness of our flesh (Rom 8:3).

The purpose of the law was and is to bring us to Messiah so that we would come to the realization that justification is through faith alone.


Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

 

[PS]

Rom 7:12 tells us the law is holy and just and good.

What the law cannot do, and what the law was never designed to do, is make us holy. Why? Because of the weakness of our flesh (Rom 8:3).

The purpose of the law was and is to bring us to Messiah so that we would come to the realization that justification is through faith alone.


Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

The danger of the law is that people think if they keep the law they shall have eternal life, but that is not true. What the law does is to point out our sins and iniquities so that we might then go to the Redeemer. Point being the law does not and cannot save. The New Testament brings this truth out, while the Old Testament does not, and the danger is that those who were brought up on the Old Testament sit back in their armchair thinking they are right with God, when they have never met with the Saviour or their sins according to the law, having never been redeemed.

 

[reneweddaybyday]

The danger of the law is that people think if they keep the law they shall have eternal life, but that is not true. What the law does is to point out our sins and iniquities so that we might then go to the Redeemer. Point being the law does not and cannot save. The New Testament brings this truth out, while the Old Testament does not,

You say "the danger of the law"

I say "the danger of our flesh" (the problem is not the law. the problem is our flesh)


You say "what the law does is point out our sins and iniquities"

I say "what the law does is point out the inability of our flesh" ... then continue with what you say "so that we might then go to the Redeemer".


You say "point being the law does not and cannot save"

I say "in agreement"


You say "the New Testament brings this truth out, while the Old Testament does not"

I say "the New Testament brings this truth out in no uncertain terms, while the Old Testament brings this truth out in shadows and types"

and the danger is that those who were brought up on the Old Testament sit back in their armchair thinking they are right with God, when they have never met with the Saviour or their sins according to the law, having never been redeemed.

I think what you mean is that "the danger is that those brought up in our day and time on the OT sit back in their armchair ..."

Please read Heb 11 and then pray and thank Father that you will not have to tell Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Sara, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Rahab, Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel, the prophets, those of whom the world was not worthy, that all they did was "sit back in their armchair thinking they are right with God". I know you would never say that these believers sat "back in their armchair thinking they are right with God".


And I do understand what you are saying ... there were and are some who do exactly as you state.

But there were and are also those who come to God through faith. Both under OC and NC. And I believe you and I are in agreement concerning this point.

I believe that throughout all of history there have been those who believe they can come to God through their own works. And these folks are mistaken.

I also believe that throughout all of history there have been those who believe they come to God through faith. And these folks are not mistaken.