Must new covenant Christians deny God’s words if they are in the OT?

[The_highwayman]

When most speak on here concerning the OT - they are speaking of the law. I agree that some things can be applicable for today's walk - Proverbs is full of wisdom which can be applied to us. BUT we do not sacrifice bulls and goats, we do not stone people when they are in the wrong, we do not go and kill communities that are against God and plunge and plunder their spoils, circumcision profits us nothing, etc.

Most dwell on the NT because it is written to the church - each of the seven church epistles are addressed to a church or the saints in Christ. The 10 commandments are carried through to the NT. The OT is prophecy concerning the coming Christ - the NT is prophecy concerning the second coming of Christ - our hope. Using the OT in comparison to the NT can be very profitable also and there are many great men of God to learn from in the OT. NO ONE has said "let's tear up the pages of the OT because we do not need them anymore". The OT is written for us to learn many truths from . . . . BUT the NT reveals the mystery; Christ in you the hope of glory - the NT tells us what we have in Christ; our being born of the Spirit, i.e. the new birth, our righteousness and justification by faith, our being joint heirs with Christ, etc.

I totally agree with you on the NT and thanks for the input, my point is that many in the body simply ignore the OT altogether, because they think, well there is nothing there for me today.

I remember a friend of mine who is an Evangelist, mention in a sermon, that David had to retrieve Goliath sword. The backlash was typical and swift, he was advised by the Pastor of the church and all the leaders he was wrong.

My friend gently guided them to 1 Sam 21 and they read it and he still was not ever invited back, because spiritual pride was high.

 

[crossnote]

and I repeat, again, please listen. It is because I have not needed to respond to your tearing down the prophets, you or your buddies haven't said that what the prophets say is not for Christians as you say of Moses.

IOW you simply can't answer because you know it is true...you bark about the laws of Moses but are silent concerning the prophecies..then rail on us for not taking heed to ALL the bible.

HYPOCRITE: noun
1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

 

[RedTent]

When most speak on here concerning the OT - they are speaking of the law. I agree that some things can be applicable for today's walk - Proverbs is full of wisdom which can be applied to us. BUT we do not sacrifice bulls and goats, we do not stone people when they are in the wrong, we do not go and kill communities that are against God and plunge and plunder their spoils, circumcision profits us nothing, etc.
Most dwell on the NT because it is written to the church - each of the seven church epistles are addressed to a church or the saints in Christ. The 10 commandments are carried through to the NT. The OT is prophecy concerning the coming Christ - the NT is prophecy concerning the second coming of Christ - our hope. Using the OT in comparison to the NT can be very profitable also and there are many great men of God to learn from in the OT. NO ONE has said "let's tear up the pages of the OT because we do not need them anymore". The OT is written for us to learn many truths from . . . . BUT the NT reveals the mystery; Christ in you the hope of glory - the NT tells us what we have in Christ; our being born of the Spirit, i.e. the new birth, our righteousness and justification by faith, our being joint heirs with Christ, etc.

Could we say that you turn down God of the Old Testament because you think that is a separate God from Christ who talks of His use of blood as having no relationship to the blood of Christ, that this God talks, not of love through law but of law to harm people by stoning, so unless the law He gives is OK'd by His son it has no place in the spiritual world?

Also, that words of scripture is space and time specific so once they are given, whether Old or New testament, they have no spiritual meaning for anyone except those in that space and time.

With that understanding of your God who created you, it is amazing that you accept Christ as God, even. No wonder, you separate Christ from the Father!!

 

[Brother_Don]

you will know them by their fruits. in this thread i see, cherries, an apple, and the lemons that leave a bad taste in my mouth, i did see a watermelon to. Sad seeing you through this red, but we've all been warned about being careful where we cast our pearls.

 

[RedTent]

IOW you simply can't answer because you know it is true...you bark about the laws of Moses but are silent concerning the prophecies..then rail on us for not taking heed to ALL the bible.

HYPOCRITE: noun
1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

Good heavens, I answer and you say I don't! You are determined to act in this way. OK. How is this. Yes, I believe all scripture comes from God, including scripture about the prophets. Would you like me to give bible lessons on the prophets now? I don't get your point.

 

[cfultz3]

Often posts tell of not going back to the old ways, of all the things that Christ cancelled that the Father told of, and if anyone brings up wisdom of God given in the OT they are accused of denying Christ, yet the Father never denied the Son or the Son the Father.

There are scriptures saying we are to use what Christ gave us now, not the things of the OT that were sort of stand-ins, shadows, or symbols of the real thing.They were used in the same way only not as well.When we look at how blood was used for atonement, we better understand how Christ’s blood is used for salvation.Blood isn’t cancelled, It is made better.When we look at the duties of the Levi High Priest, we see how our real High Priest is used, not cancelled but better.When we look to see what water means spiritually in the bible, it helps to see how it has always been used.

Yet, if anyone posts anything about any of this they are labeled and black ballled.The first words they give are about ”works won’t save, only Christ”.I wonder why?The OT says the same thing: that only through the blood can salvation happen, they repeat the OT when they say that, yet they think it is an argument against God’s words in the OT.

I believe Redtent is simply saying that the Old Testament helps us to understand concepts of the New Testament.

That is, the Levi priests were told to use blood, so Jesus used His blood. Old testament tells us that we need a sacrifice, so Jesus became a perpetual sacrifice. The Old tells us how the LORD lead His people as a Shepherd, so the Lord is our Shepherd....etc......

But, Redtent, this we accept and do not deny that connection between the Old and New. We do not say that Christ canceled the Old, but FULFILLED (brought to reality) that which the Father pre-spoke of through the Scriptures and prophets.

By no means, REDTENT, do we separate the Father and the Son, as though they are two gods with different messages. No, Christ fulfilled what the Father spoke concerning Him, this we proclaim. Without the Father, there would have been no Son. Without the Son, the Father's words would have been null. So then, how can we separate their unified message?

The Father spoke of the things to come through Christ and those things which where spoken into commands where but foreshadows of what was to be real through the Son our Father sent to us.

Redtent, this I say to your soul, we have been divorced from the Law so that we can marry another Husband. If we have been married to another Husband then we have been set free from the Law of our last husband. And, if we introduce another husband into our new marriage, would we not be called an adulteress? We, the Bride, is to but have one lord over us for the rest of our lives.

Love you,

Chris

 

[RedTent]

I believe Redtent is simply saying that the Old Testament helps us to understand concepts of the New Testament.

That is, the Levi priests were told to use blood, so Jesus used His blood. Old testament tells us that we need a sacrifice, so Jesus became a perpetual sacrifice. The Old tells us how the LORD lead His people as a Shepherd, so the Lord is our Shepherd....etc......

But, Redtent, this we accept and do not deny that connection between the Old and New. We do not say that Christ canceled the Old, but FULFILLED (brought to reality) that which the Father pre-spoke of through the Scriptures and prophets.

By no means, REDTENT, do we separate the Father and the Son, as though they are two gods with different messages. No, Christ fulfilled what the Father spoke concerning Him, this we proclaim. Without the Father, there would have been no Son. Without the Son, the Father's words would have been null. So then, how can we separate their unified message?

The Father spoke of the things to come through Christ and those things which where spoken into commands where but foreshadows of what was to be real through the Son our Father sent to us.

Redtent, this I say to your soul, we have been divorced from the Law so that we can marry another Husband. If we have been married to another Husband then we have been set free from the Law of our last husband. And, if we introduce another husband into our new marriage, would we not be called an adulteress? We, the Bride, is to but have one lord over us for the rest of our lives. Love you,
Chris

I don't think you understand your husband or this marriage. It is true that neither the Father or the Son ever said that I will marry you, but if you don't follow my law, I will put you in jail and not free you. That is misrepresenting the marriage negotiations. But they did say that this is your part in this marriage if we are to live a happy life. Your refusal to be any part of that is like a lazy person who says I'll take all I can from you in the marriage, but don't ask me to contribute in any way---I'll not cook, clean, or take care of our children in any way. I deny you even asked, I only married for what it gives me, not to give in any way. This wonderful God who agrees to the marriage says OK, if that is the way you want it, but understand we would be happier if you would act the part of my wife and I am explaining to you how to do that.

 

[peacefulbeliever]

=RedTent;1643258]Could we say that you turn down God of the Old Testament because you think that is a separate God from Christ who talks of His use of blood as having no relationship to the blood of Christ, that this God talks, not of love through law but of law to harm people by stoning, so unless the law He gives is OK'd by His son it has no place in the spiritual world?

No you can not say that because I do not turn down God at any time. Separating the physical slaughter of animals for remission of sin and looking to Christ shed blood for the remission of sins - is that separating God from Christ? Were not people who disobeyed the law - stoned during that time - is that separating God from Christ? Did not God use swift judgment in that time - is that separating God from Christ?

Also, that words of scripture is space and time specific so once they are given, whether Old or New testament, they have no spiritual meaning for anyone except those in that space and time.

I do consider that the OT mostly is and was for the children of Israel and yes, fit that specific time. The OT is the prophecy of the coming Christ - the NT is the prophecy of the second coming of Christ - is that separating God from Christ?

From post #22 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away: How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? For if the ministration of condemnation be glory much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect by reason of the glory that excelleth. For if that which was done away was glorious much more that which remaineth is glorious. Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which was abolished. But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord the vail shall be taken away. Hebrews 3:7-16

It seems to me that God through scripture even separates the two covenants . . . . . the ministration of death and the ministration of the spirit

With that understanding of your God who created you, it is amazing that you accept Christ as God, even. No wonder, you separate Christ from the Father!!

So in other words you are saying that I am an unbeliever because I do not apply the law of the OT to myself? How in the world am I separating God from Christ or Christ from God? Either I am having a hard time understanding you or you are having a hard time understanding me. . . . . .

 

[phil112]

Post #41, red. I must assume that your non-response IS your response.

 

[cfultz3]

I don't think you understand your husband or this marriage. It is true that neither the Father or the Son ever said that I will marry you, but if you don't follow my law, I will put you in jail and not free you. That is misrepresenting the marriage negotiations. But they did say that this is your part in this marriage if we are to live a happy life. Your refusal to be any part of that is like a lazy person who says I'll take all I can from you in the marriage, but don't ask me to contribute in any way---I'll not cook, clean, or take care of our children in any way. I deny you even asked, I only married for what it gives me, not to give in any way. This wonderful God who agrees to the marriage says OK, if that is the way you want it, but understand we would be happier if you would act the part of my wife and I am explaining to you how to do that.

I once was alive apart from the Law.

Sin, receiving a start point through a law, deceived me and I died.

The command which I thought was for life, was for death. Oh, how that sin deceived me.

To those who are learning to know the Law, do you not know that the Law has dominion over (rule over, is lord over) one as long as he lives?

Through the body of Christ, we have died to that old lord and are now free to marry our new Husband.

To those who are learning to know the Law, do you not know that sin is dead without a law? Do you not know that sin is not imputed where there is no law? Why then revive sin by introducing your last husband, the law, into your grace filled marriage with your new husband, Jesus, indeed the Lord of those who have died to the Law.

 

[cfultz3]

Redtent,

Just to add: we are dead to the Law as our husband/lord who directs our flesh to serve God. But we, as Christians, are not dead to God's Law, we just serve by a renewal of spirit, seeing that it is the Law within us which desires to do that which is good.

My personal notes and I hope you understand what I am saying:

Rom 7:21-23 I then find the Law is the thing within me (I shall write my Law upon their hearts) desiring to do the thing which is virtuous (good/worthy for usage)(as compared to G18 : intrinsically good) because that evil (intrinsically so) is present in me, 22 seeing that (why he says the Law is within us) I, according to the inner human (man)(of the heart (1Pe 3:4)), delight in the Law from God. 23 But, I look at another law in my body parts (limbs) warring against (in a militarily way) the Law of my mind and bringing me into captivity to the Law of that offense (sin), the one being in my body parts (limbs) (the Law is either done physically (body parts) or spiritually (inner man) and if it is present and there is no 'to perform the thing which is good' in you, then it has to be the Law which is desiring you to do that which is good)

 

[RedTent]

No you can not say that because I do not turn down God at any time. Separating the physical slaughter of animals for remission of sin and looking to Christ shed blood for the remission of sins - is that separating God from Christ? Were not people who disobeyed the law - stoned during that time - is that separating God from Christ? Did not God use swift judgment in that time - is that separating God from Christ?

I do consider that the OT mostly is and was for the children of Israel and yes, fit that specific time. The OT is the prophecy of the coming Christ - the NT is the prophecy of the second coming of Christ - is that separating God from Christ?

From post #22 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away: How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? For if the ministration of condemnation be glory much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect by reason of the glory that excelleth. For if that which was done away was glorious much more that which remaineth is glorious. Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which was abolished. But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord the vail shall be taken away. Hebrews 3:7-16

It seems to me that God through scripture even separates the two covenants . . . . . the ministration of death and the ministration of the spirit

So in other words you are saying that I am an unbeliever because I do not apply the law of the OT to myself? How in the world am I separating God from Christ or Christ from God? Either I am having a hard time understanding you or you are having a hard time understanding me. . . . . .

I certainly did not accuse you of not believing in Christ, you say you do. Then you repeat that much of scripture is done away with. Even that the veil being split is to make something done away with instead of making everything more accessible. That the two covenants are separating us, not working together. You say you would not apply the law to yourself, and talk of these instructions in living as being abolished. As you repeat you do not believe in these scriptures, you say you have no unbelief!

I agree that belief in the saving power of the blood of Christ covers this in you. I still pray for you and the church in the amount of unbelief you all have.

 

[RedTent]

Redtent,

Just to add: we are dead to the Law as our husband/lord who directs our flesh to serve God. But we, as Christians, are not dead to God's Law, we just serve by a renewal of spirit, seeing that it is the Law within us which desires to do that which is good.

My personal notes and I hope you understand what I am saying:

Rom 7:21-23 I then find the Law is the thing within me (I shall write my Law upon their hearts) desiring to do the thing which is virtuous (good/worthy for usage)(as compared to G18 : intrinsically good) because that evil (intrinsically so) is present in me, 22 seeing that (why he says the Law is within us) I, according to the inner human (man)(of the heart (1Pe 3:4)), delight in the Law from God. 23 But, I look at another law in my body parts (limbs) warring against (in a militarily way) the Law of my mind and bringing me into captivity to the Law of that offense (sin), the one being in my body parts (limbs) (the Law is either done physically (body parts) or spiritually (inner man) and if it is present and there is no 'to perform the thing which is good' in you, then it has to be the Law which is desiring you to do that which is good)

I don't think you understand that if you see the spirit of the law, you would also follow through with living with this spirit. How could you manage to have a spirit of love for others while you are lying about them?

God is so good that God does not allow the law to kill us, so are not under law but grace. God is our husband, God says no matter how you act in this marriage I will not cancel the marriage. But when we won't do our part in this marriage, we cannot have a good marriage. When you say you are above the rules and don't have to do a thing, you are taking advantage.

 

[cfultz3]

I don't think you understand that if you see the spirit of the law, you would also follow through with living with this spirit. How could you manage to have a spirit of love for others while you are lying about them?

Yes. The Law is not dead. But, we are dead to it as our husband, as that one who has dominion over us. We do serve with a renewed spirit and not by the antiqueness of a letter which led by the flesh.

God is so good that God does not allow the law to kill us, so are not under law but grace.

The Law is good and does not kill. It is sin which uses the Law to accomplish death in us. As you say, we are not under the Law...and that is because under it, there is a recognition of sin and where there is a law, sin revives and kills us.

God is our husband,

Jesus is the Groom who shall come for His Bride, those who have died to the Law and wedded Him.

God says no matter how you act in this marriage I will not cancel the marriage.

I am certain I am misunderstanding you here as I see it saying that we can be lascivious and still be wedded to our new Lord.

But when we won't do our part in this marriage, we cannot have a good marriage. When you say you are above the rules and don't have to do a thing, you are taking advantage.

A Husband can divorce His wife for adultery.

 

[peacefulbeliever]

I certainly did not accuse you of not believing in Christ, you say you do. Then you repeat that much of scripture is done away with. Even that the veil being split is to make something done away with instead of making everything more accessible. That the two covenants are separating us, not working together. You say you would not apply the law to yourself, and talk of these instructions in living as being abolished. As you repeat you do not believe in these scriptures, you say you have no unbelief!

I agree that belief in the saving power of the blood of Christ covers this in you. I still pray for you and the church in the amount of unbelief you all have.

But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away: How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? For if the ministration of condemnation be glory much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect by reason of the glory that excelleth. For if that which was done away was glorious much more that which remaineth is glorious. Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which was abolished. But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord the vail shall be taken away. Hebrews 3:7-16

What does this mean to you?

 

[RedTent]

But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away: How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? For if the ministration of condemnation be glory much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect by reason of the glory that excelleth. For if that which was done away was glorious much more that which remaineth is glorious. Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which was abolished. But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord the vail shall be taken away. Hebrews 3:7-16

What does this mean to you?

You see scripture as saying what you have decided it says, and that is your opinion. I cannot talk to you about your opinion, only about scripture. I don't see how you can put the veil (not vail) meaning as the Jews being blinded to that the Messiah was the same as Christ that was crucified, scripture doesn't say that. What happened when it was ripped was that the saints awoke from the sleep they were given at atonement, and Christ became the High Priest. Scripture also does not say that Christ tore every instruction about the best way to live out of the bible. I would have to believe these things you believe to be able to even discuss this with you. I am very careful not to add to scripture or take away from it.

 

[dcontroversal]

Would you make it clear what side you are on? One side says that God is truth and is in the OT and the other side says that the OT is only of shadows that do not apply to us. Are you saying that as long as God is speaking of Christ in the OT, we may listen? Or that God is one and eternal?

I am on God's side Red.......and I find...

1. Jesus in both testaments
2. Things that are applicable in both testaments unto me
3. As well as things that do not apply to me in both testaments

So, maybe there is a fine line to walk here as God gave both and there is truth to be gleaned from both as Peter told us to be MINDFUL of the things written aforetime by the prophets of OLD!

 

[crossnote]

Good heavens, I answer and you say I don't! You are determined to act in this way. OK. How is this. Yes, I believe all scripture comes from God, including scripture about the prophets. Would you like me to give bible lessons on the prophets now? I don't get your point.

I was wondering why you haven't harped on the prophecies/prophets of the OT nearly as much as you do the OT laws.
Go ahead give us a bible lesson on the prophets, I'd love to hear it and won't criticize it.

 

[peacefulbeliever]

You see scripture as saying what you have decided it says, and that is your opinion. I cannot talk to you about your opinion, only about scripture. I don't see how you can put the veil (not vail) meaning as the Jews being blinded to that the Messiah was the same as Christ that was crucified, scripture doesn't say that. What happened when it was ripped was that the saints awoke from the sleep they were given at atonement, and Christ became the High Priest. Scripture also does not say that Christ tore every instruction about the best way to live out of the bible. I would have to believe these things you believe to be able to even discuss this with you. I am very careful not to add to scripture or take away from it.

I truly am sorry that you don't seem able to discuss 2 Cor. 3:9-16 [sorry I had it as Hebrews 3] and in that section of scripture veil is spelled vail .

I am truly sorry that you believe that I have added to scripture and/or taken away from it. All I did was post it and asked you what you thought it meant so that maybe I could see your perspective.

P.S. Apologies to everyone for the mistake in the scripture chapter and verse should be 2 Cor. 3:9-16

 

[chubbena]

I am on God's side Red.......and I find...

1. Jesus in both testaments
2. Things that are applicable in both testaments unto me
3. As well as things that do not apply to me in both testaments

So, maybe there is a fine line to walk here as God gave both and there is truth to be gleaned from both as Peter told us to be MINDFUL of the things written aforetime by the prophets of OLD!

Indeed He's the Word of God who spoke through Moses and again spoke in the flesh. The problem is, some think He came and rendered what He previously said, at least in part, obsolete.
However, in dealing with the seducer, He said "man does not live on bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God."
Every word.
Those words we think not applicable someday we might find useful.
Regardless, He would not speak against Himself like we speak against each other here.