Yeah, we shouldn't be beating our slaves in the New Covenant at all!
I wouldn't want any slaves at all, but some do... so they get married!
What Old Covenant Laws are the New Covenant believer to obey?
- Thread starter Arthur81
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Yeah, we shouldn't be beating our slaves in the New Covenant at all!
I wouldn't want any slaves at all, but some do... so they get married!
Didn't you read my post. I said the sacrifice was changed because Jesus replaced all animal sacrifices, Yet Jesus sacrifice is still working today, so therefore the necessity for a sacrificial Lamb is still necessary for all those who need salvation and that Law is still in practice. The priesthood was changed because the veil was rent asunder and Jesus became the high priest because we no longer need a mercy seat. Yet Jesus is the High Priest and that hasn't changed. Look, we got new wine flasks and new wine, but the need for a flask and wine are still necessary. Establishing in the old testament the greater things to come was absolutely and complexly necessary, but the old testament because God's word (Jesus) is in there is the establishment for a new, because the new was the propitiation once and for all time.
The old Testament dealt with Transgressions and Iniquities. Every year God would pass over their Transgressions with a first born, unblemished Lamb and the reason is because the Lamb was innocent of having brought sin in the world. Man could not find a first born Unblemished Son of man to be sacrificed for man. Even Isaac had to be rejected because he was born of the sin nature. So mans iniquities could never be removed, because iniquity is the condition in which man stood before God; in other words - CONDEMED. They all remained in the grave (not hell) until Jesus set the captives free even though their transgression were passed over.
The work of redemption on the cross (the new flask) removed all that, but greater, the whole issue of sin was pardoned. "I have cast your sins as far as the east is from the west". This is what the old established, and on that foundation and establishment came the new. God did all of that by His wisdom and He gets the Glory and all the praise. Moses had NOTHING to do with it except serve God as His messenger. GOD DID IT ALL.
And yet... the old covenant law could never bring life (Galatians 3:21)
So, it was taken away so that the New Covenant could be established (Hebrews 10:9) which brought forth a change in the priesthood and the law (Hebrews 7:12) to where we are now which is living under the Law of Christ with Jesus as our High Priest
So, it was taken away so that the New Covenant could be established (Hebrews 10:9) which brought forth a change in the priesthood and the law (Hebrews 7:12) to where we are now which is living under the Law of Christ with Jesus as our High Priest
GracePeace
Well-Known Member
Did you read my post debunking your "we're under the Law" theory?
And don't tell me "not under Law" means "not condemned by Law", because the next words say "we're under Grace", so that would have to mean that "we're condemned by Grace", which, in any case, would not clarify why "sin will not master you".
Last edited:
I didn't say it could. I said eternal life was preached through the old testament by the Apostles. It wasn't the new testament law that brought life, it was the person of Jesus who fulfilled the old testament requirement that a son of "man" be the Sacrificial Lamb. We are saved because the old testament requirement had to be fulfilled, not a new one. The new testament does not require that Jesus keep dying on the cross again and again. Our salvation comes from the blood requirement of the old testament. Jesus came to fulfill the whole law. The new testament came when God's holy spirit was poured out upon all flesh. The first gentiles recorded to receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit was Cornelius and his entire household. The Apostles were not made Apostles until they received "Power" in the upper room. Until then, they were still Jesus disciples, as when Jesus walked in the old testament fulfilling it.
There is nothing to debunk brother. I never said "we're under the law" nor did I give that idea. What I gave was the truth. What you do with it is between you and the one who judges truth.
That's funny... Jesus took the old covenant away... and establish a NEW Covenant!
No need to embarrass yourself further... become a New Covenant guy with Jesus as your High Priest today!
Hebrews 10:9
Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
Hebrews 7:12
For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
GracePeace
Well-Known Member
You claimed God's Law doesn't change, and that the Old Covenant Law (minus sacrifices) is written on our hearts. That was disproven.
Last edited:
BarneyFife
Well-Known Member
It sounds so final, as if arbitrated by an infallible entity. Are you sure there's no room for discussion?
.
GracePeace
Well-Known Member
I'm obviously getting him to acknowledge the point he's not acknowledging (part of a discussion--not saying I'm infallible, I'm inviting discussion).It sounds so final, as if arbitrated by an infallible entity. Are you sure there's no room for discussion?
.
If you're interested in addressing the evidence, I'm all ears.
BarneyFife
Well-Known Member
GracePeace
Well-Known Member
I'm just trying to understand the Bible so I know what God wants. I have that responsibility. The Bible is impossible to understand, I've found, and my "secret weapon" is I go to God to ask for help. My own human understanding is limited, myopic, fruitless and vain. Only when I ask for help do I get real answers.Your mind is way too sharp and active for me to challenge in semi-real time.
.
GracePeace
Well-Known Member
You mentioned you were age-d, so I thought you might be interested in knowing, in case you haven't heard, cocoa reverses age related memory loss. I actually think it's a lot better to have the organic cocoa nibs--more intense brain boost, and a lot safer, bc, in the processing (creation of cocoa powder), metal machines are used to crush the stuff, and, apparently, that also crushes the metal machine, itself, releasing it into the cocoa, so, a lot of prepared cocoa has heavy metal contamination. So, cocoa nibs are an all around better Cocoa choice IMO.Your mind is way too sharp and active for me to challenge in semi-real time.
.
Enjoy!
Last edited:
Does the Lord negotiate concerning the truthfulness of his Word?
Just asking for a friend!
BarneyFife
Well-Known Member
I got lots of friends... and they know not to talk to me about sketchy religious beliefs that they
cannot back up with scripture... because there will be correction forthcoming forthwith
BarneyFife
Well-Known Member
It is important with friends to be always ready to correct them so they won't ever want to talk about religion. I know that's what I always look for in a friend.
.
BarneyFife
Well-Known Member
It seems to me that you're using a rule of expression I don't necessarily see dictated here. I can't see any requirement that if we're not condemned by the law then we must therefore be condemned by grace. I certainly see the possibility of such expression, which is common enough but what if the emphasis is on what we are affected by (bad or good) rather than how it affects us? For law can, by nature, condemn, but grace never invokes such a thing. Couldn't "under the law" mean condemned by the "law of sin and death" spoken of in Romans 8:2, which simply refers to the fact that "the wages of sin is death" as stated in Romans 6:23?
Peter himself claims that Paul wrote many things that are hard to understand, and yet I notice that many people handle his writings as if any 5-year-old child could easily grasp them. I wouldn't confine Paul's sophisticated intellect to any type of expression. I have asked before if anyone would volunteer some passage from Pauline text that they find virtually impossible to understand and I never get any response. I wouldn't study Romans 7 and 8 together for years because there were so many interpretations of it circulating, none of which I could settle on or improve on.
I confess I don't have the virtually allergic reaction to the word "law" that many seem to have today. When I was a child "law" was something that kept people safe and free to live prosperous lives. The church I grew up in (Southern Baptist) held the Ten Commandments in the highest regard and kept Sunday significantly "holier" than it is today.
.
Similar threads
