• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Christians! Do you despise Abominations? There's only one left to hate....which?

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Yes, Jesus obeyed the commands, the laws of Moses.
Correct, and then, through the death, burial and resurrection instituted the New Covenant:

Matthew 26: 27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;

28 For this is my blood of the new will and testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Correct, and then, through the death, burial and resurrection instituted the New Covenant:

Matthew 26: 27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;

28 For this is my blood of the new will and testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
What a cop out.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Can't change what was written in the book you quote from - Matthew. Or do you want it from Mark?

But you are spinning that (somehow) to discard laws which good Christians should be clinging to.

That's a cop out, pretending Jesus said things which he didn't.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
But you are spinning that (somehow) to discard laws which good Christians should be clinging to.

That's a cop out, pretending Jesus said things which he didn't.

Not at all.

When we have two wills and testaments, you always go to the most recent one because there are better promises. Why? Because there has been a change. Usually a New will and Testament has more things, more promises.

The TaNaKh said there would be a New Testament:

ESV Jer. 31:31 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah,

The author of Hebrews, who understood the Jewish TaNaKh explained it: Hebrews 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

So, when we have a Testament... a covenant... we have to search the terms of the covenant. If you know the legal particulars, you receive the promises of that covenant.

In the TaNaKh it was a series of memorizing the law to fulfill the law to have an open relationship with YHWH. If you didn't, there were consequences. A series of offerings, most with the shedding of blood, had to be fulfilled to get back to relationship.

In the New Covenant, it starts with a fulfilled relationship (as close as a husband and wife). You are already in the open (nothing hidden) relationship and He helps you live your life. If you miss it, love already covered your sins because holy blood was already shed and you move forward with full relationship.

What to do is written in your heart.

The Last Will and Testament (NT) erased some particulars of the First Will and Testament (such as the sacrificial laws), kept some particulars of the First Will and Testament (like worship), and created new particulars in the Last Will and Testament - such as a continual forgiveness because of love.

But if you don't know the terms, then someone will rob your blessings.

So, to go back or to enact the First will and Testament when it is already been replaced (as you seem to suggest), it is to go back to a lesser blessing. You can do it if you want, but it will never match the New Will and Testament.
 
Last edited:

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Not at all.

When we have two wills and testaments, you always go to the most recent one because there are better promises. Why? Because there has been a change. Usually a New will and Testament has more things, more promises.

The TaNaKh said there would be a New Testament:

ESV Jer. 31:31 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah,

The author of Hebrews, who understood the Jewish TaNaKh explained it: Hebrews 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

So, when we have a Testament... a covenant... we have to search the terms of the covenant. If you know the legal particulars, you receive the promises of that covenant.

In the TaNaKh it was a series of memorizing the law to fulfill the law to have an open relationship with YHWH. If you didn't, there were consequences. A series of offerings, most with the shedding of blood, had to be fulfilled to get back to relationship.

In the New Covenant, it starts with a fulfilled relationship (as close as a husband and wife). You are already in the open (nothing hidden) relationship and He helps you live your life. If you miss it, love already covered your sins because holy blood was already shed and you move forward with full relationship.

What to do is written in your heart.

The Last Will and Testament (NT) erased some particulars of the First Will and Testament (such as the sacrificial laws), kept some particulars of the First Will and Testament (like worship), and created new particulars in the Last Will and Testament - such as a continual forgiveness because of love.

But if you don't know the terms, then someone will rob your blessings.

So, to go back or to enact the First will and Testament when it is already been replaced (as you seem to suggest), it is to go back to a lesser blessing. You can do it if you want, but it will never match the New Will and Testament.

This is just waffle, Ken.
Jesus demanded re-instatement of the laws, those discarded by a careless priesthood.

And for any Christian to think that they can ignore hundreds of laws because of such spin, whilst clinging to ones that suit their ideas about righteousness, this kind of attitude is what will reduce Christianity.... not build upon it.

Two thousand years has shown just how hypocritical and law picking many Christians and leaders have been.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
This is just waffle, Ken.
I haven't waffled a bit... been quite consistent IMV

Two thousand years has shown just how hypocritical and law picking many Christians and leaders have been.

Hypocrisy can be found anywhere, even in those who are Deists. But we aren't talking about what people do, (I thought). I thought we were talking about what Jesus did and the New Testament

Jesus demanded re-instatement of the laws, those discarded by a careless priesthood.

I disagree on various points:

  1. Matthew 5:27-29 27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: (that was the law) 28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. This is a totally different law.
  2. Again, you are talking about Jesus speaking to the Jews as He fulfilled the law what it was still under the Mosaic law. The New Covenant began when he died (by logic - for a new testament means the replacement of the old)
  3. In that you are saying we should still sacrifice lambs (the law) you are saying that nothing has changed and yet it is no longer required. Why should i agree with your position when obviously "the law" concerning the sacrifices of lams is no longer required?

And for any Christian to think that they can ignore hundreds of laws because of such spin, whilst clinging to ones that suit their ideas about righteousness, this kind of attitude is what will reduce Christianity.... not build upon it.

I disagree. It actually liberates us. You have nailed it on the head with the difference between the law and grace. If you live by the law, you will die by the law. Have you lied? Have you had other gods? (maybe even yourself?) have you dishonored your parents? Have you looked at a person with lust in your heart? Those are just 4 of the hundreds (as you mentioned). If you can't even keep all four of these, how can you keep hundreds? The law, though good, never made anyone any better. It just designated us as unable to bring us to perfection.

God changed the law of Moses (the law which designates sin and consequences) to a law of grace and life:

Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh

We walk in grace, which builds up and not reduces the faith in Christ Jesus. Man has always tried to be better... Jesus through grace makes us better.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
I haven't waffled a bit... been quite consistent IMV
No..... and inconsistently abounds in this post as well...... to be shown.....

Hypocrisy can be found anywhere, even in those who are Deists. But we aren't talking about what people do, (I thought). I thought we were talking about what Jesus did and the New Testament.
We were just talking about Apostle's John's claims.
I only wish that we talked more about what Jesus really did, preferable without the Christian additions .......

I disagree on various points:
Matthew 5:27-29 27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: (that was the law) 28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. This is a totally different law.
No it isn't! It's an addition to an old law.

Again, you are talking about Jesus speaking to the Jews as He fulfilled the law what it was still under the Mosaic law. The New Covenant began when he died (by logic - for a new testament means the replacement of the old)
He only spoke to the Jews.
Who else did you think he spoke to?

In that you are saying we should still sacrifice lambs (the law) you are saying that nothing has changed and yet it is no longer required. Why should i agree with your position when obviously "the law" concerning the sacrifices of lams is no longer required?
That's quite dishonest, imo. All the way through this thread I've pointed out that Jesus had redacted 106 of the laws, leaving 507.
Why do some Christians hide behind the sacrificial laws, knowing full well that Jesus had clearly redacted them by act and word, in their pretences that the old laws are gone?
But you have never made mention of the poor laws, all commandments for you to obey, but which you've managed to ignore?

I disagree. It actually liberates us. You have nailed it on the head with the difference between the law and grace. If you live by the law, you will die by the law. Have you lied? Have you had other gods? (maybe even yourself?) have you dishonored your parents? Have you looked at a person with lust in your heart? Those are just 4 of the hundreds (as you mentioned). If you can't even keep all four of these, how can you keep hundreds? The law, though good, never made anyone any better. It just designated us as unable to bring us to perfection.
Don't pretend you know what I've done in my life, and don't pretend that I would not support all those OT laws which are still needed today.

And it doesn't liberate you, it just gives you the opportunity to play at righteousness whilst ignoring right, for instance totally supporting and calling for better provision of the poor and homeless, the sick, the disabled and more.

God changed the law of Moses (the law which designates sin and consequences) to a law of grace and life:

Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh
Do you think that Paul is God? If not, please quote exactly where Jesus said exactly what Paul wrote. Paul's mention of freedom from sin and death is not true, either, because (back then) if he had broken any of the laws (507) he was leaving himself open to weakness or sickness of some sort.

We walk in grace, which builds up and not reduces the faith in Christ Jesus. Man has always tried to be better... Jesus through grace makes us better.
One moment you want to walk in grace, the next you want to judge others..... am I right?
But if you correct that clearly in writing then we'll all know for the future.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
One moment you want to walk in grace, the next you want to judge others..... am I right?
But if you correct that clearly in writing then we'll all know for the future.

no - you are wrong. You have taken things out of context

apparently this has gotten personal for you

I respectfully bow out

peace to you

Ken
 
Top