Lets be clear

[johnmark29020]

I thought the old was incomplete,and when jesus came bring grace and mercy it completed the old. So the two together made one whole complete convenant. If I am wrong in this understanding please feel free to share. Example, The road sign says 55mph. You were talking to G-D and didnt realize that you were going 58. The cop stops you because you were breaking the law,but after talking to you. The cop realizes that you didnt intened to break the law. So he show you mercy by not giving you a ticket or locking you up. So you are a law breaker,but you didnt have to pay for the offense,because you werent trying to break the law. I thought that was how the old and new worked together. I am interested in what you guys have to say. Love and peace to all of my friends in christ

 

[Anonymous]

Whoa David, I was just pointing out the NC did not start at the Cross or at Pentecost but that it would come into being when the Lord returned at Trumpets.

I'm not a replacement theory exponent.

That's fine. I used to believe in the "Left Behind" doctrine, the "two Israels", and dispensationalism, so I can't throw stones. Aside from its implications for the law, what we understand about eschatology isn't really relevant. But laying Trumpets aside for the moment, do you see the Mosaic covenant starting at Passover (Egypt), Weeks (Sinai), Exodus (wilderness) or Trumpets (Jericho)?

The nation of Israel came to Mt. Sinai on the third day of the third month (Ex. 19:1). God visited them three days later (Ex. 19:10-17). Therefore, the Mosaic Law was given by Yahweh Himself on the sixth day of the third month of the Biblical religious calendar, which is the month of Sivan. This day is exactly fifty days from the crossing of the Red Sea.

On the first Weeks, the Law was given, and 3,000 people died for worshiping the golden calf, signifying the covenant of the law that brought death. On the last Weeks (Pentecost), the Spirit was given, and 3,000 people received life and were added to the Church (Acts 2:41), signifying the covenant of the Spirit that brought life. In both the type and the anti-type, God fully established His Covenant, right?

I agree with you that nobody entered into the Land of Promise at Weeks. Betrothal is not consummation, but betrothal begins as soon as the contract is made between the two parties, correct? I assume you would agree that during betrothal, you are legally married, but you do not dwell with your wife. The covenant starts at betrothal, when it is made.

John 14:3-7: "And if I go and prepare a place for you, I shall come again and receive you to Myself, that where I am, you might be too. And where I go you know, and the way you know." T'oma said to Him, "Master, we do not know where You are going, and how are we able to know the way?" Yahushua said to him, "I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father too. FROM NOW ON YOU KNOW HIM, and have seen."

Jeremiah 31:34: "And no longer shall they teach, each one his neighbour, and each one his brother, saying, 'Know Yahweh', for THEY SHALL ALL KNOW ME, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares Yahweh. "For I shall forgive their crookedness, and remember their sin no more."

No matter how much we understand, we are each blessed by Him to have eternal life through His Son's sacrifice for us. In that, we can all rejoice!

Always in His love,
David

 

[PolyPride]

I have yet to come across a perfectly coherent theory to explain if the old covenant is relevant and applicable today, and if so, what still applies. I know that a covenant can be broken because a covenant takes an agreement between at least two (not one) people. If one person or all of the people on one side of the covenant (the Israelites) break the covenant, then it can not stand anymore. You can't have a one person covenant. In light of the New Testament (covenant), the only thing I see passing away is the old "covenant" but that does not necessarily mean the ENTIRE Old Testament (esp. the unfulfilled prophecies that may be in it) nor does it have to mean ALL of the OT laws/commandments. For example, if I only followed the laws that deal with moral conduct (or to get more specific, sexual conduct), does that mean that I'm following the Old covenant? Wouldn't I have to follow ALL of the OT and in the way that it was intended to be followed in order for me to validly be following the old covenant? From my understanding so far, the word "Law" in the NT sometimes referred to the old covenant "as a whole or system".

I'll finish off with two points this reasoning:

SOME laws in the OT are still applicable to the NT (as in are still to be followed under the new covenant) like the ones that deal with someone's moral conduct (some also that the deitary laws, ceremonial laws, the special days/weeks/festivals, etc are not to be followed anymore). If this is not the case then I don't know what acts are sin and which aren't, especially when Paul mentions that the LAW is the knowledge of sin (Romans 3:20); and also, he would not have known what sin was except through the Law (Romans 7:7).

For my last point, I'd say that another difference between the two covenants is a matter of how we stay in line with righteousness and not sin. The old covenant way is by observing the Law completely, by studying it, memorizing and reciting it, using your will power to remain righteous (Deuteronomy 6:25, Deuteronomy 31:10-13, Galatians 3:24), but the new covenant way is by faith in Christ and being led by the Holy Spirit (Romans 3:21-22, Galatians 5:16-18, especially vs. 18). In effect though, since the Law is still relevant in that it's the "knowledge" of sin, both ways I just mentioned would still involve knowing what sin is so that you'll know what to avoid; it's just a matter of how or through what means do we avoid sin and stay in line with God (on our own vs. faith in Christ and being led by the Spirit).


Even with those who believe that the Law still applies to the NT in some way, there are still differences in views. Do ALL of the Laws apply to the New covenant and it's just a matter of how we fulfill them or follow them, or do only SOME of the laws apply while it is also a matter of how we stay in line with them.

 

[Shimon]

I dislike using the word scriptures, having lived too long in a morman community. But I do like what the way I've heard the Old and New Testament described: The New Testament is in the Old predicted, and the Old Testament is in the New, revealed.

Dave

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

Although there may be debate about which rules should be applied in what situations.

I think everyone agrees that within the protestant Bibles used by Lutherans and Presbyterians (as opposed to the Catholic and other denominations Bibles which contain different manuscripts) translations of books/scrolls/documents written before Jesus were "old testament" and after Jesus were "new testament." I am just talking about the names that people label them as!

I have never heard otherwise. Does anyone disagree with that?

 

[Mark C]

Although there may be debate about which rules should be applied in what situations.

I think everyone agrees that within the protestant Bibles used by Lutherans and Presbyterians (as opposed to the Catholic and other denominations Bibles which contain different manuscripts) translations of books/scrolls/documents written before Jesus were "old testament" and after Jesus were "new testament." I am just talking about the names that people label them as!

I have never heard otherwise. Does anyone disagree with that?

Absolutely. The fact that people call our form of government a "democracy" does not make it one, or change history; it simply demonstrates the sorry state of Publik Skool Edukashun.

There are MANY of us who reject that terminology, and teach otherwise.

The term "old" is all too often used to teach a false doctrine, which the Savior Himself clearly and repeatedly rejected (Matt. 5:17-19, etc), claiming that He "did away with" His own Word. And since any careful reading of Jeremiah 31:31 and the related prophecy will show that it is STILL necessary for us to "teach our neighbor" about His Word, because it is obviously not yet written on "every" heart, the claim that the "new" is already complete is almost equally deceptive.

For that reason, almost any other terminology is preferable. Both the apostles and Yahushua Himself called the entire set of Writings which they had either a word translated to English simply as "Scripture", or by the more specific nomenclature of "Torah, Writings, and Prophets". ("Tanakh" is a modern transliterated acronym.)

As for the Messianic Writings, the term "Brit Chadasha" is certainly preferable to "new" Covenant, because the better rendering is RE-newed Covenant. As a reading of the Writings will show, YHVH knew the end from the beginning; He knew man would continually break His Covenants, and ultimately there was nothing which He did not reveal, repeatedly, in His Word from Bereshiet ('Genesis') onward.

Just as we can, and occasionally must, use a word like "democracy" in teaching about government -- if only because the Founders so vehemently and universally REJECTED it -- we can use the other terms to teach discernment. But we must understand the distinctions first.

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

I used to call the new testament the new covenant......

But actually I could not see clearly that it directly named itself the new covenant

It would help a lot if there was a phrase with similar meaning to.... these writings by the name of _______ that will one day be compiled with other writings called ____ into a single book called ______ in the future. I do not remember reading anything so direct as that.

I wish I knew what the new testament named itself. Since the new covenant could possibly refer to some other thing after Jesus crucifixion than the books, I stopped calling it the new covenant and started referring to it as the new testament again for a lack of a better name. I did this because I did not want to misuse the term the new covenant.

Is there any evidence that the new covenant is the same as the new testament. And that the new covenant does not refer to something else, post resurrection?

It is interesting that the Gospel could be argued to predate the law of Moses.

The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: "All nations will be blessed through you." Galatians 3:8 NIV

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

Should we just use the Greek words Jesus used to refer to the "old testament" in the four gospels, which were written in Greek?

I figure Jesus must have called it the correct thing.

 

[Tlaloc]

Graphe? I dunno, that pretty much just means scripture, and we already call the Old Testament scripture so that doesn't help much.

Nomos? That just means law in general.

Prophetes? That is the very root of our own word prophets.

If we want to use what he used the acronym Tanakh is pretty good, as he refereed to scripture as the law and the prophets (and he quoted the writings).

But for the New Testament, I always like calling it the the Gospels and the Epistles, it covers the divisions well. Even Revelation is an epistle, and Acts is a continuation of Luke and fits nicely under the umbrella of the Gospels.

 

[Mark C]

Should we just use the Greek words Jesus used to refer to the "old testament" in the four gospels, which were written in Greek?

I figure Jesus must have called it the correct thing.

He did, but He didn't do it in Greek. He certainly called the five Books of Moses "Torah", and frequently quoted the "Writings", and "Prophets" (obviously YeshaYaHu, or Isaiah, in particular) -- using the Hebrew words.

And there is virtually no doubt that Matthew*, in particular, was clearly written in Hebrew (and parts in Aramaic) and then translated later to Greek. The same is true for the other Gospels, most if not all of the other Epistles (Yochanan/John, Kefa/Peter, Yaakov/James) and certainly the Revelation. Even most of the letters of Paul were probably written in Hebrew and/or Aramaic and then translated, even when such was done in a more timely fashion.


[Again, "the name "Tanakh" is a Hebrew acronym formed from the initial Hebrew letters of the Masoretic Text's three traditional subdivisions: The Torah ("Teaching", also known as the Five Books of Moses), Nevi'im ("Prophets") and Ketuvim ("Writings")—hence TaNaKh. The name "Miqra" (מקרא) is a Hebrew word for the TaNaKh, meaning "that which is read". The texts are generally considered to have been 'accepted' several hundred years before the birth of the Messiah.]



--------------------------------------------
* Even the Hebrew name rendered in English as "Matthew" is illustrative:

"Matthew" is really "MatitYaHu", which is literally "matit" or "taught ones" (disciples, if you will) of "YaHu". YaHu is (as has been the practice of men of Yah throughout the Bibles, from AbraHam to the prophets, such as YeremeYaHu, YesheYaHu, and so on) taken from the first two syllables of 'the Name' YHVH. YaHu-shua, of course, then means "YaHu-saves", or the Salvation of Yah.

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

Should we just use the Greek words Jesus used to refer to the "old testament" in the four gospels, which were written in Greek?

I figure Jesus must have called it the correct thing.

He did, but He didn't do it in Greek. He certainly called the five Books of Moses "Torah", and frequently quoted the "Writings", and "Prophets" (obviously YeshaYaHu, or Isaiah, in particular) -- using the Hebrew words.

And there is virtually no doubt that Matthew*, in particular, was clearly written in Hebrew (and parts in Aramaic) and then translated later to Greek. The same is true for the other Gospels, most if not all of the other Epistles (Yochanan/John, Kefa/Peter, Yaakov/James) and certainly the Revelation. Even most of the letters of Paul were probably written in Hebrew and/or Aramaic and then translated, even when such was done in a more timely fashion.

You are saying the new testament was not written in Greek.

But where are the complete manuscript copies of the new testament in the other languages?

Have people found fragments in these other languages that they have reason to believe predate the Greek?

 

[sweetlissa]

He did, but He didn't do it in Greek. He certainly called the five Books of Moses "Torah", and frequently quoted the "Writings", and "Prophets" (obviously YeshaYaHu, or Isaiah, in particular) -- using the Hebrew words.

And there is virtually no doubt that Matthew*, in particular, was clearly written in Hebrew (and parts in Aramaic) and then translated later to Greek. The same is true for the other Gospels, most if not all of the other Epistles (Yochanan/John, Kefa/Peter, Yaakov/James) and certainly the Revelation. Even most of the letters of Paul were probably written in Hebrew and/or Aramaic and then translated, even when such was done in a more timely fashion.

How many conservative New Testament scholars believe this to be true?

 

[mrscottyl]

How many conservative New Testament scholars believe this to be true?

Before anyone can prove to me that the NT was written in Greek, I want them first to show me the original manuscripts, all in Greek. Oh, but they can't because we do not have the originals. So confusion then arises because now do we choose the Alexandrian or the Antiochan texts as as the correct texts. Confusion is not from the Father, but from Satan, so any thing that adds confusion is not from Him. I cover a lot of this in my book "What Is The Truth?" (http://stores.lulu.com/mrscottyl) Since you can not prove to me with concrete direct evidence and without a shadow of a doubt that the Texts were even written in Greek to begin with, then everything said to that extent is pure conjecture. Did some Hebrews at the time speak Greek? Yes, undoubtedly. Did some Hebrews at the time write in Greek? Yes, undoubtedly. But that does not mean that Yahuwshua or His disciples did, and there is no one here that can prove this in the way that I asked for it to be proven. This can then lead to doubtful disputations really quick. One can gather a thousand conservative NT scholars and have them say something is true, but if it is not backed up by Scripture, then they are just as the Priests of Ba'al during Eliyahu's time. Not everyone who claims to be a Christian is wheat for Yahuwshua says that most are tares. A NT scholar means nothing to me - only the Word of YaHuWaH matters.

Scott

 

[Mark C]

Well said, Scott.

Likewise, Lissa, I don't really care how many 'scholars' (whatever they may call themselves) believe such (although it is almost certainly less than the number who deny what Scripture says about marriage - which I reject for similar reasons ). I have seen much more than convincing evidence from those whose scholarship I respect (which has been outlined here on BF more than once) to make the case. And I know that the language the Savior taught in and quoted Scripture from was NOT Greek! And neither was His mindset.


(PS> I will confess an immediate bias against any self-proclaimed "New Testament scholar". Why would they use an adjective that implies that they may be ignorant not only of the REST of Scripture, but the majority of it? What kind of foundation can be built on sand? I will suggest a wonderful book by language scholar Brad Scott called,
Let This Mind Be in You. Those who would like to study the question should take a look at his materials.)

A free on-line sequence of lessons on the subject are here:
http://www.wildbranch.org/teachings/hebrew-greek-mind/

http://www.wildbranch.org/teachings/lessons/

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

Before anyone can prove to me that the NT was written in Greek, I want them first to show me the original manuscripts, all in Greek. Oh, but they can't because we do not have the originals.

Scott

So you can not show documents from any other language either to prove they were not in Greek.

Then you should not claim ANY language to be the language they were written in not even Hebrew?

What language or languages do you choose to read when you want to know what Jesus said?

 

[mrscottyl]

What language or languages do you choose to read when you want to know what Jesus said?

I would have to say English, since He spoke English for my 1611 KJV, 1599 Geneva Bible, 1525 Tyndale Bible, and 1395 Wycliff Bible. For more modern English versions, the RNKJV, 1998 The Scriptures, Hebraic Roots Version, CJB, MKJV, the Orthodox Jewish Brit Chadasha, James Murdock's Translation of the Syriac Peshitta, The Peschito Syriac New Testament by John Wesley Etheridge, The Restoration Scriptures, the Aramaic Bible in English, English version of the Shem Tov, 1830 Noah Webster's Bible.

He spoke Aramaic in the Syriac/Aramaic, Syriac Peshitta, and Greek in Textus Receptus (1550/1894), Byzantine/Majority Text (2000), believe it or not I do have a copy of Westcott-Hort with NA27/UBS4 variants (1881). But I do not know if you were aware of this, but He spoke Cherokee as well because He did so in the Cherokee New Testament (1860).

I use to have a copy of Martin Luther's German Bible, a Russian Bible, and Korean and Japanese Bible, a Taglog and Chamorro. And of course, I know He is wonderful, because He also speaks Klingon. I have that Bible too.

You may think that I am being facetious here, or flippant, but my point is that if you have the Holy Spirit/Ruach HaKodesh, you do not need to be a Bible Scholar or be fluent in any language, because the Ruach will lead you into all understanding to where you will actually know more than those supposed NT scholars. Christians rely much too heavily on scholars and not enough on the Holy Spirit. 2 Timothy chapter 2 and verse 15 tells us to study to show ourselves approved. The Bereans were commended because they searched the Scripture to see if what they were told was the truth. Far too many get side tracked on languages and scholars and miss the entire point of Scripture. And you just asked about the parts of Scripture where our Savior spoke. I did not bother to list all the versions of the Tanach that I have. Do not entrust your faith and soul to humanity, but entrust it to the One who can deliver you from the clutches of humanity - the Holy Spirit/Ruach HaKodesh.

Scott

 

[steve]

Christians rely much too heavily on scholars and not enough on the Holy Spirit.

too true

2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

was it given by inspiration and then we were abandoned?
are we not to look to the Author for inspiration in understanding His Word?

1Cr 2:14 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.

we have too many natural men thinking themselves scholars and they are venerated altogether too much while we avoid a relationship with the One who created us for a relationship
it seems that we would rather serve (on our terms, no less) Him than actually walk with Him

 

[steve]

as far as the first question;
just remove that one page between the two sections that has the words The New Testament on it and consider the whole thing a single continuation in the Creators relationship with us

 

[mrscottyl]

was it given by inspiration and then we were abandoned?
are we not to look to the Author for inspiration in understanding His Word?

The Holy Spirit has not left this world, so there has been the truth out there, if we submit and listen to the Holy Spirit instead of listening to those who wrestle with it to their own destruction.

Scott

 

[steve]

agreed, scott

sure is a well-kept secret, isn't it?