Departure From Oblivion!

[just-me]

Because by making a statement like that would say I did not read all that you wrote, just picked one sentence out of everything said and misapplied it.

The OT is good for understanding and instruction, but nowhere does the bible say in the NT that the old covenant laws are binding to a new covenant believer in Christ. It says the law was to show us our transgressions and need for a Savior, and when that Savior came (Jesus Christ) we are no longer under that law because we are under grace.

It served its purpose to bring us to Christ and then we are told to move forward in the Spirit, not the oldness of the letter of the law.

I'm not saying they are binding for salvation or self righteousness. Neither one. Nevertheless we live by every word God has ever spoken to date. There is a threshold of maturity we are to strive for, according to the will of God for us, and that is assisted by every word of God, not just part of it.

Example. Leviticus chapter 14 has what is called the "law of leprosy" concerning a dwelling. With spiritual insight, as person can see it perfectly relates to being conformed into the image of Christ and following Christ by picking up our cross daily and following Him. From what I understand, even back then, houses weren't filled with leprosy. It's a Spiritual revelation.

One other thing concerning the conversation Jesus had with Nicodemus, keeping in mind that all they had back then is what we know as the law and the prophets. Jesus questioned Nicodemus because he didn't know about being born again. John 3:10 Also the Bereans searched the law and the prophets to confirm what Paul was telling them. Acts 17

Think about the caul above the liver, and kidneys and the fat of a peace offering, why they were burnt on the altar, and what they represent in a spiritual context. The law is full of insight for Christians to study and see the awesomeness of God the Father and His only Son our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I could go on and on but I want to keep my posts short as possible.

 

[KennethC]

While Shoshanah takes a nap I will jump in here for a second. Ken, I DO RECALL you specifically mentioned how "eating certain foods" was an issue of conscience except for things strangled-that's NO GO. I am not going hunting for it... but I am comfortable that you will recall this example. HOW KEN, do YOU know that eating things strangled is no go??? Did this knowledge magically POP into your thoughts???... NO, you read it in the scripture, where was that information introduced... in the OT. Is it there for some restrictive RULE god put on us??? NOPE... what IS it there for???? WHY does God instruct us not to eat things strangled?? <I realize this is a BIG question which you might not be prepared for but it is a GOOD question>.

Previously in the thread, Shosh mentioned a simple example about how she discovered a PROOF to the truth of God's word in her GARDEN. WHERE did she mine that little nugget of truth from???? the OT.

Some of us are discussing the TRUTH of Mat.4:4 and it's application by FAITH in the life of believers. Now again, I am going to mention that you are very good at championing against OSAS... and you understand that we are to be DOERS of the word and you have used Luke 6:46 to prove your point.... yet for some reason you do not perceive....


THE BREAD ALONE... do you not recognize WHO the bread is and WHAT Jesus is saying here???

How do I know things strangled is a no go, because Acts 15:20, 29 clearly says this.

I never said we disregard the OT or do not use it for instruction or understanding things better, but do we still consider them such as the Mosaic laws as things that have to be kept and obeyed for salvation???

No, if you think that way you have the wrong aspect of the things from the OT especially that of the written ordinances, as again like I mentioned before this was the discussion the Apostles had in Acts 15. They came to a conclusion that those laws were a heavy burden that even they could not keep, so they were not to place them on new Gentile believers. They limited it down to just a few to still be kept, and the Holy Spirit agreed !!!

Again living by every word of God mentioned in Matthew 4:4 does not mean we have to obey to do everything from the OT as well.

This is where rightly dividing the word of God comes in, because the teachings in the old covenants such as the law served their purpose and was fulfilled by the Lord on the cross, and by His teachings on a better way to live. Instead of focusing on those written ordinances He says just focus on walking in love.

So I understand what that means by not living by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God, and from there thanks be to the Holy Spirit I rightly divide it on what its purpose was for.

 

[KennethC]

I'm not saying they are binding for salvation or self righteousness. Neither one. Nevertheless we live by every word God has ever spoken to date. There is a threshold of maturity we are to strive for, according to the will of God for us, and that is assisted by every word of God, not just part of it.

Example. Leviticus chapter 14 has what is called the "law of leprosy" concerning a dwelling. With spiritual insight, as person can see it perfectly relates to being conformed into the image of Christ and following Christ by picking up our cross daily and following Him. From what I understand, even back then, houses weren't filled with leprosy. It's a Spiritual revelation.

One other thing concerning the conversation Jesus had with Nicodemus, keeping in mind that all they had back then is what we know as the law and the prophets. Jesus questioned Nicodemus because he didn't know about being born again. John 3:10 Also the Bereans searched the law and the prophets to confirm what Paul was telling them. Acts 17

Think about the caul above the liver, and kidneys and the fat of a peace offering, why they were burnt on the altar, and what they represent in a spiritual context. The law is full of insight for Christians to study and see the awesomeness of God the Father and His only Son our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I could go on and on but I want to keep my posts short as possible.

Yes and I don't deny anything you have said here that do provide insight and understanding.

The issue I have though is when one says or seems like they are saying that we still have to follow, obey, and do all 613 Mosaic written ordinances still.

That is putting one under the law by saying that as they have no binding on us under grace, what the law says it says to those who are under it. Are you under grace or under the law should be the question asked to all ???

If you say the laws are still binding and must be kept by new covenant believers then you are under the law, not grace for under grace we walk by the Spirit.

 

[jamie26301]

Well, the very first Christians were Jews, iow, they felt the Law still applied, the Mosaic Law. In fact, some believed you musy convert to Judiasm FIRST, then get into discussing following Jesus. That became a source of debate very quickly, and Paul himself was involved in it. So almost immediately after the Church was born, did they start asking these questions.

Yes atwhatcosts, is does get convulted. You are advocating what you seem to think is simple and straightforward, and the thing is Scripture IS not that straightforward. We have copies (no orignials) of ancinet texts, far removed from their orginial context, with varying opinions from scholars how to read them. To to have an honest discussion about it is going to get convulted, very quickly. Many Christians adher to such because, well, that's what is predominately orthodox. I do not mean it is certainly correct, I could be in error about things.

I do not feel the Law and covenat is a reflection of God, but Christ is. I believe pure love exercised by any Christian is a reflection of God, as Christ is in us. And even then, a reflection is not the same as looking directly into the image, or fully understanding its details. The thing I try to remember is there is always more to see, more to discover about God. He is not confined to a book. He is not bound by a book. As soon as you say that, you (figuratively) limit His reach and His audience. You limit resources you could feel open to honestly reading and thus truely learning and understanding your neighbor can be hindered.

People aren't saying "wha wha, don't wanna obey God (the Law.)" What is being proposed here on this thread isn't very helpful. The Law is a picture of God that should be followed... again, which laws? What is spiritually understood and literally applied?

What would "returning to the Law" really look like in the day to day life of believers? Theocracy? What about worship, and how one deals with their sin? How do they determine they sinned or can someone else determine and override their own judgement based in their conscious? Think about the typical worship and life of an American Chrsitian today - how would that change?

 

[just-me]

No Apostle Paul in Romans 7 is speaking on when he first converted and how his old ways had him carnal sold under sin, he says he was still held under the law. At the end of that chapter Paul says who can save me from this way.

In Romans 8 Paul says he could no longer be carnal minded as that way leads to eternal death, and not eternal life.

Romans 7 does not support believers still have to obey the Mosaic written ordinances.........

If that was the case then what he said previously that we are not under the law would be contradictory for him to do.
One minute say not under the law, and then the next say he is held under the law contradicts. Therefore Romans 7 can not be a continuous way in which Paul continued in the faith.

So Paul is ministering according to what he felt before his conversion? Paul is not under the law in Romans 7. He is growing in grace according to the last verse, and he recognizes within himself 2 entities that are at odds with each other. Romans 7:25 He speaks in present tense because he wants to do what is right. He has a law in his mind and a different law in his flesh. If the law is not for Christians, then why does Paul refer to sacrifice after salvation as a reasonable service? Romans 12:1

Then when Paul says where there is no law there is no sin imputed to us, then obviously the Christian doesn't recognize their own sin because there is no law. Why minister or exhort people that have no way to identify their own faults, unless Paul continues to use the law the right way as to minister?

Romans 5:13
1 Timothy 1:8

One more thing to recognize about Paul in the way he worshiped after his conversion. "But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets." (Acts 24:14)

There is a clear difference between being "under the law" and believing the law. They are not the same thing, so it would do you well to write that difference in your posts as to not confuse people.

 

[just-me]

Yes and I don't deny anything you have said here that do provide insight and understanding.

The issue I have though is when one says or seems like they are saying that we still have to follow, obey, and do all 613 Mosaic written ordinances still.

That is putting one under the law by saying that as they have no binding on us under grace, what the law says it says to those who are under it. Are you under grace or under the law should be the question asked to all ???

If you say the laws are still binding and must be kept by new covenant believers then you are under the law, not grace for under grace we walk by the Spirit.

Any true believer knows that they cannot be perfect according to God's standards, but there is a new life in Christ Jesus and being born again in Him is just the beginning and not the ending of any word God has ever spoken. It's not right to speak in such a way as to lead people to believe that the law of God is extinct for believers. Keep in mind that the Scripture Timothy was reading was the law and the prophets along with the Letters that Paul wrote that were not classified as scripture as we classify them today. Paul wrote "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" 2 Timothy 3:16

And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. Luke 24:27

 

[shotgunner]

Sorry but I have to go with gb9 on this on Hebrews 8:13.............

For it is clearly talking about the covenants and making the first covenant obsolete not the priesthood.
For it clearly says by the new covenant makes the first obsolete !!!

I completely agree with you on this Ken. The priesthood is spoken of but only showing that the changing of the priesthood necessitates a changing of the covenant. The changing of the covenant is the subject, clearly shown in Hebrews 8:8-10.

 

[BarlyGurl]

The issue I have though is when one says or seems like they are saying that we still have to follow, obey, and do all 613 Mosaic written ordinances still. I am wondering HOW MANY TIMES it has to be pointed out to YOU, that none of the people you are POINTING AT in this thread by your <above> statement ARE NOT SAYING THAT and the SEEMS LIKE is coming from your own STUBBORN HEAD!!!
.

WHAT is being said is that "MAN shall LIVE BY every word that comes from the mouth of GOD"... IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE.... you can take that as a bad thing... but we are saying if you are a believer... IT IS GOOD... It is RICH, A TREASURE, IT MAKES YOU WISE, IT IS AMAZING!!!! And we want to do it to the height of all possibility.... I DO anyway. But I have a pretty firm confidence Just's and Shosh and Ember are on board.

I hope ember comes back soon... she usually has something good to contribute too. I need a nap now...

Sheesh Ken... if you would just stop arguing about an issue that is IN YOUR HEAD and relax and ask the Lord to SHOW you what we are saying instead of wrongly presuming and then arguing about it... I will go so far as saying... YOU WILL BE DELIGHTED TOO!

 

[just-me]

WHAT is being said is that "MAN shall LIVE BY every word that comes from the mouth of GOD"... IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE.... you can take that as a bad thing... but we are saying if you are a believer... IT IS GOOD... It is RICH, A TREASURE, IT MAKES YOU WISE, IT IS AMAZING!!!! And we want to do it to the height of all possibility.... I DO anyway. But I have a pretty firm confidence Just's and Shosh and Ember are on board.

I hope ember comes back soon... she usually has something good to contribute too. I need a nap now...

Sheesh Ken... if you would just stop arguing about an issue that is IN YOUR HEAD and relax and ask the Lord to SHOW you what we are saying instead of wrongly presuming and then arguing about it... I will go so far as saying... YOU WILL BE DELIGHTED TOO!

AMEN BIG TIME!!!!

 

[just-me]

the first covenant was REPLACED by the second. if ya'll can't see, or do want to see that, o.k. It is plain words in Hebrews 8.

Sorry but I have to go with gb9 on this on Hebrews 8:13.............

For it is clearly talking about the covenants and making the first covenant obsolete not the priesthood.
For it clearly says by the new covenant makes the first obsolete !!!

By this you are saying the the Levitical priesthood is still intact, and the words of God in the Old covenant are obsolete? That's a stretch. I have never heard that one before.

Hebrews 8:1 declares the summarization that will be explained in the following verses about the high priest.
Hebrews 8:6 says Christ is the Mediator of a better covenant.
Hebrews 8:7 has the added word "covenant" that is not in the original transcript.
Hebrews 8:13 has the added word "covenant" that is not in the original transcript.
Hebrews 9:1 also has the added word "covenant" that is not in the original transcript.
Hebrews 9:2-10 describes the Temple and the Levitical priesthood.
Hebrews 9:11 clearly says Christ is the High Priest of good things to come, out of the tribe of Judah, after the order of Melchizedek/Melchisedec, defined in Hebrews 5:10. So let's go back to chapter 5 and then catch up with chapter 9

Hebrews 5:12 describes the necessity of teaching the first principles of the oracles of God.
"What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God." (Romans 3:1-2)

So what are the "oracles of God?" Lo and behold, "This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us: (Acts 7:38)

Hebrews 7:11-27 defines the Levitical priesthood as inferior.

Hebrews 7:28 describes the "word of oath," (covenant promise) defined in the law, which consecrates Christ as the everlasting Priest.

So what is this "word of oath?" "The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek." (Psalm 110:4)

The "word of oath" in respect to God' everlasting promise concerning the priesthood is "forever more."

"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?" (Numbers 23:19)

"My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David. His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me." (Psalm 89:34-36)

So is it the covenant (God's promise) that waxes old and ready to vanish, or is it the physical priesthood of Levi that is old, decayed, and gone? Your choice.

"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." (2 Peter 3:9)

 

[ember]

It is very encouraging and uplifting to see someone try so hard to be sure of understanding correctly and not just giving up until you have it figured out.
I don't find it difficult to see (but before I studied it at all I would say it was confusing) how smoothly the physical Torah instructions pave the way for a wonderful transition to the spiritual keeping of it in our hearts now that we are the temple.

I tend to like to take things apart and I may do it more than once

I am of the mind that we will never have it all figured out down here...and there are hundreds of Christians forums if not thousands, that prove me right....

I'm not finding it confusing....but I might start to get confusededed if I read every single post...

I really don't have time to post here now, but just so that y'all don't forget me and I can see that BarlyGurl...you made that hard to spell, eh? actually may have wondered where I was at one point...

well, out for the day again...but be thinking about it


thinking..........

 

[gb9]

By this you are saying the the Levitical priesthood is still intact, and the words of God in the Old covenant are obsolete? That's a stretch. I have never heard that one before.

Hebrews 8:1 declares the summarization that will be explained in the following verses about the high priest.
Hebrews 8:6 says Christ is the Mediator of a better covenant.
Hebrews 8:7 has the added word "covenant" that is not in the original transcript.
Hebrews 8:13 has the added word "covenant" that is not in the original transcript.
Hebrews 9:1 also has the added word "covenant" that is not in the original transcript.
Hebrews 9:2-10 describes the Temple and the Levitical priesthood.
Hebrews 9:11 clearly says Christ is the High Priest of good things to come, out of the tribe of Judah, after the order of Melchizedek/Melchisedec, defined in Hebrews 5:10. So let's go back to chapter 5 and then catch up with chapter 9

Hebrews 5:12 describes the necessity of teaching the first principles of the oracles of God.
"What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God." (Romans 3:1-2)

So what are the "oracles of God?" Lo and behold, "This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us: (Acts 7:38)

Hebrews 7:11-27 defines the Levitical priesthood as inferior.

Hebrews 7:28 describes the "word of oath," (covenant promise) defined in the law, which consecrates Christ as the everlasting Priest.

So what is this "word of oath?" "The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek." (Psalm 110:4)

The "word of oath" in respect to God' everlasting promise concerning the priesthood is "forever more."

"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?" (Numbers 23:19)

"My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David. His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me." (Psalm 89:34-36)

So is it the covenant (God's promise) that waxes old and ready to vanish, or is it the physical priesthood of Levi that is old, decayed, and gone? Your choice.

"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." (2 Peter 3:9)

you are correct about the word covenant not being in the original transcript. but that still does not change what verse 8 says, which you conveniently skipped over. the rest of chapter 8 is a natural extension of what God said about the new covenant in verse 8.

 

[just-me]

you are correct about the word covenant not being in the original transcript. but that still does not change what verse 8 says, which you conveniently skipped over. the rest of chapter 8 is a natural extension of what God said about the new covenant in verse 8.

That wasn't the subject at hand concerning the priesthood after the order of Melchizedek . Now we are conversing about the prophecy concerning the new covenant with Israel and Judah prophesied in Jeremiah and Ezekiel.

For finding fault with *them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: (Hebrews 8:8) KJV

He calleth it a *house, as it were one family of the whole kingdom: for whereas the kingdom of David was divided into two factions, the Prophet gave us the understanding that through the new Testament they shall be joined together again in one. "Finding fault with them" refers to the people, not God's word written in the law.

Ezekiel 37:16-19[SUP]
16 [/SUP]Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim and for all the house of Israel his companions: [SUP]17 [/SUP]And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand.
[SUP]18 [/SUP]And when the children of thy people shall speak unto thee, saying, Wilt thou not shew us what thou meanest by these?
[SUP]19 [/SUP]Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand.

"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." (Jeremiah 31:33)

Now compare that with verse 10 in Hebrews chapter 8.
"For this is the covenant that I will make "with the house of Israel" after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:"

This doesn't change the fact that the Levitical priesthood has vanished away. The prophecy "with the house of Israel" in verse 8 has is fulfilled in relation to Ezekiel 37:16-19 being the true church.

"Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:" (Romans 2:9-10) Also see ( Romans 1:16 )

 

[Shoshanah]

I tend to like to take things apart and I may do it more than once

I am of the mind that we will never have it all figured out down here...and there are hundreds of Christians forums if not thousands, that prove me right....

I'm not finding it confusing....but I might start to get confusededed if I read every single post...

I really don't have time to post here now, but just so that y'all don't forget me and I can see that BarlyGurl...you made that hard to spell, eh? actually may have wondered where I was at one point...

well, out for the day again...but be thinking about it


thinking..........

You are doing fine! Whatever post you read, just remember that EVERY Word of God is still true and valid for Christians today - it is inescapable- and you will stay on track!

I enjoy your comments!

 

[gkroo]

The problem with listening to any one part of the preaching of the Bible and not having the whole Bible in your preview and I mean in your mind, in your heart (the new covenant in Hebrews), so that you can compare, contrast, mentally underline, bold, underscore you are just scratching your tickling ears and you walk away like a puff in the wind.

 

[gkroo]

Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

 

[Shoshanah]

I did not intend to start a thread that would degenerate into controversy over whether the “law” is obsolete or not, or any of the other wrinkles in the same theme that have cropped up. But it seems I have unintentionally done so and I truly hope no one is more confused than before.

I would like to post a paragraph from the beginning of a study about the types of covenants God used and the sequence in which He used them that was posted in sections over a year ago on the Bible Discussion Forum. This study explains so much, including Old and New Covenant s and their relationship to each other, and uses the Bible and history both to corroborate what is said. I really believe the whole thread should be posted again because there must be many new people in more than a year since it was posted the first time. By the time I finished reading the whole study, I clearly understood some of the questionable points I had in my mind - things like Hebrews 8, and we are the temple, and our "reasonable service" - what in the world did that mean? Now I know. But I am in the process of doing the Berean thing as Acts 17 talks about: Acts 17:110 (NAS) Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.

“Experience has shown me over and over that what God says in His Word is true, and most professing Christians would agree with that simple statement. Likewise, it has also been proven that many professing Christians are exactly that – professing to be Christians, all the while having been misled somewhere along the way, into believing that their carnal minds are somehow compatible with the Word of God which is only spiritually discerned. It is not warm and fuzzy. It is many times not logical by our 21[SUP]st[/SUP] century standards. It is however, the very Words of El ‘Elyon (The Most High God), every one of which we are to live by according to both Deuteronomy 8:3 - "He humbled you and let you be hungry, and fed you with manna which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that He might make you understand that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the LORD," and Matthew 4:4 - But He answered and said, "It is written, ''MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREADALONE, BUT ON EVERYWORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.' "

 

[Shoshanah]

This is the link to the thread I mentioned in my last post: http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/85795-new-covenant-wine-all-goda-s-word.html?highlight=



There is so much information here that the title can't begin to tell what all there is.

 

[KennethC]

So Paul is ministering according to what he felt before his conversion? Paul is not under the law in Romans 7. He is growing in grace according to the last verse, and he recognizes within himself 2 entities that are at odds with each other. Romans 7:25 He speaks in present tense because he wants to do what is right. He has a law in his mind and a different law in his flesh. If the law is not for Christians, then why does Paul refer to sacrifice after salvation as a reasonable service? Romans 12:1

Then when Paul says where there is no law there is no sin imputed to us, then obviously the Christian doesn't recognize their own sin because there is no law. Why minister or exhort people that have no way to identify their own faults, unless Paul continues to use the law the right way as to minister?

Romans 5:13
1 Timothy 1:8

One more thing to recognize about Paul in the way he worshiped after his conversion. "But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets." (Acts 24:14)

There is a clear difference between being "under the law" and believing the law. They are not the same thing, so it would do you well to write that difference in your posts as to not confuse people.

Once again if Apostle Paul was talking in the present tense in Romans 7 then why does Romans 7:14 and Romans 8:6 conflict with one another ???

If Apostle Paul is speaking present tense in chapter 7 then by what he said in chapter 8 would be Paul calling himself spiritually dead. For chapter 7 he says he is carnal sold under sin, but in chapter 8 he says that carnal way leads to eternal death.

Also what Apostle Paul just got done saying in chapter 7 he says in Romans 7:24 who can deliver him from this body of death (wretched ways). He is looking for deliverance still which is to be saved !!!

To make chapter 7 a continuance of how Paul always was in the faith then you just made the gospel of Christ a license to sin.
For Paul is talking about walking in the flesh in chapter 7, and then chapter 8 he is speaking on walking in the Spirit.

 

[KennethC]

Not at all just making a point that the priesthood is not the only part of the old covenant that is being spoken on as you alluded to before to make it about only that one aspect. It is speaking on the whole old covenant not just one part of it.

Just like Hebrews 8:7 says if the first covenant would have been found without fault a second would not have been made.

The flesh is to weak to keep the laws therefore it brought death instead of life !!!

By this you are saying the the Levitical priesthood is still intact, and the words of God in the Old covenant are obsolete? That's a stretch. I have never heard that one before.

Hebrews 8:1 declares the summarization that will be explained in the following verses about the high priest.
Hebrews 8:6 says Christ is the Mediator of a better covenant.
Hebrews 8:7 has the added word "covenant" that is not in the original transcript.
Hebrews 8:13 has the added word "covenant" that is not in the original transcript.
Hebrews 9:1 also has the added word "covenant" that is not in the original transcript.
Hebrews 9:2-10 describes the Temple and the Levitical priesthood.
Hebrews 9:11 clearly says Christ is the High Priest of good things to come, out of the tribe of Judah, after the order of Melchizedek/Melchisedec, defined in Hebrews 5:10. So let's go back to chapter 5 and then catch up with chapter 9

Hebrews 5:12 describes the necessity of teaching the first principles of the oracles of God.
"What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God." (Romans 3:1-2)

So what are the "oracles of God?" Lo and behold, "This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us: (Acts 7:38)

Hebrews 7:11-27 defines the Levitical priesthood as inferior.

Hebrews 7:28 describes the "word of oath," (covenant promise) defined in the law, which consecrates Christ as the everlasting Priest.

So what is this "word of oath?" "The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek." (Psalm 110:4)

The "word of oath" in respect to God' everlasting promise concerning the priesthood is "forever more."

"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?" (Numbers 23:19)

"My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David. His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me." (Psalm 89:34-36)

So is it the covenant (God's promise) that waxes old and ready to vanish, or is it the physical priesthood of Levi that is old, decayed, and gone? Your choice.

"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." (2 Peter 3:9)