Nothing new about the "new" covenant?

[chubbena]

Re: Nothing new about the "new" covenant ?

I didn't ask if you were a legal resident.

I asked if you were a USA citizen.

Still not giving straight answers, which often indicates deception.


My curiousness will be stemmed when I get a direct answer to my question:

are you a USA citizen?

A simple "yes" or "no" will do fine.

Refusal to answer directly not only often indicates deception,
but it would also have taken a whole lot less time to type.

No one is obliged to answer if he does not want to especially in a free country and by no means indicates deception. Only products from dictatorship government would see the way this poster sees or lawyers eager to win by word play would say the way this poster says.

 

[chubbena]

Re: Nothing new about the "new" covenant ?

first off i did not see youre first question,

sorry i did not read every word of youres it got by me.


but you shot back like i was guilty and avoiding for a reason.

a personal question that had nothing to do with this post,

same reply you gave me, about when i posted something,

that did have to do with the post.


my indirect answer had everything to do with youre attitude.




no trouble at all replying, just not up to youre speed,


this gives me pratice typing, something i need work at,

and im sure you will give me lots more work at it,

by asking questions not relivent to the posts again.


p.s. i asked a few questions too , but never was a reply,


mabe you are trying to hide something by not answering mine

Proverbs 26:4-5
Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him. Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.

 

[just-me]

Re: Nothing new about the "new" covenant ?

Proverbs 26:4-5
Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him. Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.

Elin.
I'm curious about what you perceive as so important in your teachings.
Is it imperative to you that the old covenant must vanish?
Is it that you sincerely believe that God's own words in the old covenant are an adversary against His grace through His own Son?
What is the summary of your belief?
Why is it that you seem to be animately be against certain aspects of the Biblical past before the new covenant?
Do you actually believe that the old is an adversity to the new?
Write your synopsis please for all to understand anything that might be valid for edification.

 

[Elin]

Re: Nothing new about the "new" covenant ?

Refusal to answer directly not only often indicates deception,
but it would also have taken a whole lot less time to type.

No one is obliged to answer if he does not want to especially in a free country

Agreed.

and by no means indicates deception.

Not exactly. . .it does in many cases.

Only products from dictatorship government would see the way this poster sees or lawyers eager to win by word play would say the way this poster says.

Who made that rule?

I understand this is your opinion, but you know about opinions,
they're like noses, everybody's got one.

 

[Elin]

Re: Nothing new about the "new" covenant ?

Elin.
I'm curious about what you perceive as so important in your teachings.
Is it imperative to you that the old covenant must vanish?
Is it that you sincerely believe that God's own words in the old covenant are an adversary against His grace through His own Son?
What is the summary of your belief?
Why is it that you seem to be animately be against certain aspects of the Biblical past before the new covenant?
Do you actually believe that the old is an adversity to the new?
Write your synopsis please for all to understand anything that might be valid for edification.

That's an honest post.

My only real aim is to be true to NT teaching.

So much of what is presented here is not.

The summary of my belief on this topic would be that
the law of Moses is subordinate to the law of grace,
according to the teachings of the NT epistles,
written years after the death of Jesus,
who during his life was both under the law himself,
and preached to those who were under the law.

It took special revelation to Paul from Jesus himself, years after his death,
to reveal the place of the Sinaitic covenant and the Mosaic law
in the NT order, that you can't put new wine (the NT order)
into old wine skins (the OT order).

It has to have new skins, the old wine skins have to go.

My summary would also include that
the glory of the new covenant ministry that brings righteousness
is much more glorious than
the faded glory of the old convent ministry that condemns men (Gal 3:10),
and which by comparison is no glory at all (2Co 3:10),

and that the glory of the new covenant is all surpassing glory (2Co 3:9-10)
which is the way we should relate to it.

What I see instead is an effort to reduce the all surpassing glory of the new covenant ministry
by first of all denying there is even a new covenant ministry, and
secondly, by exalting the faded glory of the old covenant ministry,
to the diminishment of the surpassing glory of the new covenant ministry.

That would be my summary on this topic.

 

[RedTent]

Erin: I believe you are convicted that your interpretation of Paul's teaching replaces the teaching of Christ. The Christians, led by James, the brother of Jesus had this same problem with Paul, his life was in constant danger over it. Courts cleared him of the charges but there has been a split in the church over these charges against Paul ever since. You would agree, we must be against what Christ taught, for you believe Paul taught that.

It is my belief that your view of Paul is based on your never learning what was going on in the world at the time Christ lived. The people following what was happening knew the Torah, they knew about God Fearers, they knew of the Jews wanting anyone who followed them to become Jews, they knew the news of that day. The gospels and the letters were written down from what God told them by people that couldn't imagine people like we are today, ones who know nothing about any of this and aren't interested in knowing.

You say the law of Moses is subordinate to the grace that Christ offers. Christ said to listen to Moses, and that he explained and added to that law.

You talk of getting rid of what we could possibly call the "old skins" and not once in all of Christ's ministry does Christ speak of deleting, destroying, getting rid of. Christ built and made better, but never by destroying. When people say destruction is of God, it is based on something they add to one of the letters, never to the gospels.

In your post explaining your position, you only say that the new covenant is better but your posts before speak of never listening to any of the old covenants at all, saying there is nothing that relates the two. Christ does not say this.

 

[just-me]

Re: Nothing new about the "new" covenant ?

That's an honest post.

My only real aim is to be true to NT teaching.

So much of what is presented here is not.

The summary of my belief on this topic would be that
the law of Moses is subordinate to the law of grace,
according to the teachings of the NT epistles,
written years after the death of Jesus,
who during his life was both under the law himself,
and preached to those who were under the law.

It took special revelation to Paul from Jesus himself, years after his death,
to reveal the place of the Sinaitic covenant and the Mosaic law
in the NT order, that you can't put new wine (the NT order)
into old wine skins (the OT order).

It has to have new skins, the old wine skins have to go.

My summary would also include that
the glory of the new covenant ministry that brings righteousness
is much more glorious than
the faded glory of the old convent ministry that condemns men (Gal 3:10),
and which by comparison is no glory at all (2Co 3:10),

and that the glory of the new covenant is all surpassing glory (2Co 3:9-10)
which is the way we should relate to it.

What I see instead is an effort to reduce the all surpassing glory of the new covenant ministry
by first of all denying there is even a new covenant ministry, and
secondly, by exalting the faded glory of the old covenant ministry,
to the diminishment of the surpassing glory of the new covenant ministry.

That would be my summary on this topic.

Thank you, and I agree that the new is better than the old. The old is physical, and the new is spiritual and everlasting unlike the old, even though Paul said the law of the old is Spiritual. I think where we are having problems is that you read what I post as something that is demeaning to the new. In the same respect I am reading what you post as demeaning to the old. Both are equally important according to God's plan and timing through Jesus Christ. I'm not endorsing the old covenant as better, or even equal in quality of the new. What I am trying to help you to understand about me is that the old is important to prove what I just said in the previous sentence. So with no further ado, I give credence to all of God's word equally in respect to it's proper place with equity. If we do not endorse this equity that is also the very character (name of God) it is very easy to distort the truth of the entire plan of salvation that was created before the world was. Thank you.

John 12:27-18
27 Now is my soul troubled ; and what shall I say ? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour.
28 Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I *"have" both glorified it, and will glorify it **"again".

*Have=old covenant
**Again=new covenat

John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

 

[Elin]

Re: Nothing new about the "new" covenant ?

Thank you, and I agree that
the new is better than the old. The old is physical, and the new is spiritual and everlasting unlike the old, even though Paul said the law of the old is Spiritual. I think where we are having problems is that you read what I post as something that is demeaning to the new. In the same respect I am reading what you post as demeaning to the old. Both are equally important according to God's plan and timing through Jesus Christ. I'm not endorsing the old covenant as better, or even equal in quality of the new. What I am trying to help you to understand about me is that the old is important to prove what I just said in the previous sentence. So with no further ado, I give credence to all of God's word equally
in respect to it's proper place with equity.

The law of Moses is subordinate to the law of grace, not equal to it.

If we do not endorse this equity that is also the very character (name of God) it is very easy to distort the truth of the entire plan of salvation that was created before the world was. Thank you.

John 12:27-18
27 Now is my soul troubled ; and what shall I say ? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour.
28 Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying,
I *"have" both glorified it, and will glorify it **"again".

*Have=old covenant
**Again=new covenat

Have = Christ's life, ministry and miracles
Again = the cross, where God glorifies his justice, power, wisdom, holiness, truth and goodness to sinners

 

[Elin]

Erin: I believe you are convicted that your interpretation of Paul's teaching replaces the teaching of Christ.

You have me confused with someone else.

Paul's teachings are the teaching of Christ, who revealed them to him.

They are one and the same teaching.

You are trying to put asunder what God has joined.

 

[chubbena]

Re: Nothing new about the "new" covenant ?

Agreed.


Not exactly. . .it does in many cases.

Do you agree or do you not agree with my one opinion? You (for the longest time I tried not to direct my post at anyone in particular but this one is direct at you) cannot chop my one opinion into two and say yes to half and say no to the other half. I hope you see what I'm getting at.

Who made that rule?

I understand this is your opinion, but you know about opinions,
they're like noses, everybody's got one.

You understand it correctly. Noses usually do not stink but not sure about other parts of the body.

 

[chubbena]

Erin: I believe you are convicted that your interpretation of Paul's teaching replaces the teaching of Christ. The Christians, led by James, the brother of Jesus had this same problem with Paul, his life was in constant danger over it. Courts cleared him of the charges but there has been a split in the church over these charges against Paul ever since. You would agree, we must be against what Christ taught, for you believe Paul taught that.

It is my belief that your view of Paul is based on your never learning what was going on in the world at the time Christ lived. The people following what was happening knew the Torah, they knew about God Fearers, they knew of the Jews wanting anyone who followed them to become Jews, they knew the news of that day. The gospels and the letters were written down from what God told them by people that couldn't imagine people like we are today, ones who know nothing about any of this and aren't interested in knowing.

You say the law of Moses is subordinate to the grace that Christ offers. Christ said to listen to Moses, and that he explained and added to that law.

You talk of getting rid of what we could possibly call the "old skins" and not once in all of Christ's ministry does Christ speak of deleting, destroying, getting rid of. Christ built and made better, but never by destroying. When people say destruction is of God, it is based on something they add to one of the letters, never to the gospels.

In your post explaining your position, you only say that the new covenant is better but your posts before speak of never listening to any of the old covenants at all, saying there is nothing that relates the two. Christ does not say this.

Not sure if James had a problem with Paul but if he did, his letter certainly didn't get personal, offensive nor question if Paul was a true believer.

 

[chubbena]

Re: Nothing new about the "new" covenant ?

Thank you, and I agree that the new is better than the old. The old is physical, and the new is spiritual and everlasting unlike the old, even though Paul said the law of the old is Spiritual. I think where we are having problems is that you read what I post as something that is demeaning to the new. In the same respect I am reading what you post as demeaning to the old. Both are equally important according to God's plan and timing through Jesus Christ. I'm not endorsing the old covenant as better, or even equal in quality of the new. What I am trying to help you to understand about me is that the old is important to prove what I just said in the previous sentence. So with no further ado, I give credence to all of God's word equally in respect to it's proper place with equity. If we do not endorse this equity that is also the very character (name of God) it is very easy to distort the truth of the entire plan of salvation that was created before the world was. Thank you.

John 12:27-18
27 Now is my soul troubled ; and what shall I say ? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour.
28 Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I *"have" both glorified it, and will glorify it **"again".

*Have=old covenant
**Again=new covenat

John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Reminds me of the first miracle. The wine was not bad but it was not sufficient in the sense of fulfilling so He came and fulfilled.

 

[chubbena]

Not sure if James had a problem with Paul but if he did, his letter certainly didn't get personal, offensive nor question if Paul was a true believer.

By that I mean certain members belittle the others by idle words.
And to Elin - you know the button to unlike, eh?

 

[Elin]

Re: Nothing new about the "new" covenant ?

Refusal to answer directly not only often indicates deception,
but it would also have taken a whole lot less time to type.

No one is obliged to answer if he does not want to especially in a free country

Agreed.

and by no means indicates deception.

Not exactly. . .it does in many cases.

Only products from dictatorship government would see the way this poster sees or lawyers eager to win by word play would say the way this poster says.

Who made that rule?

I understand this is your opinion, but you know about opinions,
they're like noses, everybody's got one.

Do you agree or do you not agree with my one opinion? You (for the longest time I tried not to direct my post at anyone in particular but this one is direct at you)
cannot chop my one opinion into two and say yes to half and say no to the other half.

Who made that rule?

I hope you see what I'm getting at.

I'm not sure I do.

Your "opinion" contains several thoughts.
I do not agree with all its thoughts.

 

[chubbena]

Re: Nothing new about the "new" covenant ?

Who made that rule?

I made this particular rule for this particular opinion because I know what I'm getting at and I'm willing to explain if only one asks.

I'm not sure I do.

Your "opinion" contains several thoughts.

One more time: No one is obliged to answer if he does not want to especially in a free country and by no means indicates deception.
If one does not want to is the case and you agree than why would you think it indicates deception?

I do not agree with all its thoughts.

What I'm getting at is God never changes. He has one thought for man which is for man to love Him with all his heart, all his mind and all his strength and the how to is all in His Word. We cannot agree with some and not with the others.

 

[Elin]

Re: Nothing new about the "new" covenant ?

I made this particular rule for this particular opinion because I know what I'm getting at and I'm willing to explain if only one asks.
One more time: No one is obliged to answer if he does not want to especially in a free country and by no means indicates deception.
If one does not want to is the case and you agree than why would you think it indicates deception?

What I'm getting at is
God never changes. He has one thought for man which is for man to love Him with all his heart, all his mind and all his strength and the how to is all in His Word.
We cannot agree with some and not with the others.

That's quite a leap, don't you think, from not agreeing with everything you say
to not agreeing with everything God says.

 

[chubbena]

Re: Nothing new about the "new" covenant ?

That's quite a leap, don't you think, from not agreeing with everything you say
to not agreeing with everything God says.

Do I remotely imply not agreeing with me is not agreeing with everything God says?
You have read wrongly. I was giving you an analogy.
I have told you my opinion is but one thought. You had to cut it into two. You had to interpret my one thought your way. And I told you you've got it wrong.
Now apply the same attitude towards the Word of God. God had one thought for mankind. If you had to cut it into pieces and interpret His thought your way, what would you come up with.
I believe that's clear enough.

 

[Elin]

Re: Nothing new about the "new" covenant ?

Do I remotely imply not agreeing with me is not agreeing with everything God says?
You have read wrongly. I was giving you an analogy.

That's the problem, in no way of any kind is God analgous to you,
nor is your multifarious opinion analgous to his immutable word.

 

[just-me]

Re: Nothing new about the "new" covenant ?

That's the problem, in no way of any kind is God analgous to you,
nor is your multifarious opinion analgous to his immutable word.

I think “it's spelled “analogous.”

You are actually saying
That's the problem, in no way of any kind is God making you see clearly by comparison.
Nor are your numerous and varied aspects comparable with certain respects to his unchanging word.

It sounds real impressive using uncommon words to describe ones character and understanding of scripture.

If the shoe fits wear it. Comparing Spiritual things with Spiritual is what is supposed to be done.
It's like you saying that Hebrews 8:13 has nothing to do with the old and new temple because you refuse to compare verses 1 thru 6 with the rest of the chapter, that even goes further in comparison with chapter 9.

1 Corinthians 2:12-14
12 Now we have received , not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak , not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth ; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned .

 

[prove-all]

Re: Nothing new about the "new" covenant ?

Not quite. . .

No answer does not often indicate deception, no answer under interrogation often indicates guilt.

so there is one law for you but different for me,

no answer from me im deception, no answer from you, you become an police interrogater.

and Jesus asked a different question, not same one back at them.