PDA

View Full Version : The Magna Carta of RT - Gal. 4:21-31



Ben Masada
August 1st, 2015, 04:34 AM
The Magna Carta of RT - Gal. 4:21-31

&. Needless to remind of, RT stands for Replacement Theology.

1. Gal. 4:21 - It means that the Church of Galatia used to be a Nazarene synagogue which Paul had overturned into a Christian church.

2. Gal. 4:22 - Abraham had two sons: Ishmael with Agar and Isaac with Sarah.

3. Gal. 4:23 - Ishmael was born after the flesh and Isaac was born after the promise.

4. Gal. 4:24 - Two Covenants: The Jewish one points to bondange after Agar.

5. Gal. 4:25 - Agar points to Jerusalem in bondage under the Jews.

6. Gal. 4:26 - The Promised Jerusalem from above is free and the mother of Christianity.

7. Gal. 4:27 - Christians must rejoice as Sarah for mothering many more children aka Christians.

8. Gal. 4:28 - Christians, after Isaac, are the children of the promise in Jesus.

9. Gal. 4:29 - Jews who are born after the flesh persecute Christians who are born of the spirit.

10. Gal. 4:30 - Scripture says to cast out Agar aka the Jewish covenant and her son aka the Jews for they shall not be heir with Isaac aka Christians, the son of Sarah aka Christianity.

11. Gal. 4:31 - Christians are not children of Agar, the bond woman but of Sarah the free one.

12. Conclusion - Can any one still claim that there is no RT in the NT? Hardly!

jamie
August 1st, 2015, 06:56 AM
12. Conclusion - Can any one still claim that there is no RT in the NT? Hardly!


The Hebrew Bible and the NT are based on two different priesthoods for two different groups of people.


For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood. And it is yet far more evident if, in the likeness of Melchizedek, there arises another priest who has come, not according to the law of a fleshly commandment, but according to the power of an endless life. (Hebrews 7:14-16 NKJV)

Ben Masada
August 2nd, 2015, 11:06 PM
The Hebrew Bible and the NT are based on two different priesthoods for two different groups of people.

For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood. And it is yet far more evident if, in the likeness of Melchizedek, there arises another priest who has come, not according to the law of a fleshly commandment, but according to the power of an endless life. (Hebrews 7:14-16)

The truth is so much different from what you have posted above! But why the priesthood of Christianity, a different religion had to replace that of another religion aka Judaism? (Heb. 7:12, 22) That's the point here. Replacement Theology. Other religions would not get involved with Judaism; why Christianity had to try to vandalize Judaism in order to find an identification for itself?

Can you prove that your lord arose from the Tribe of Judah? No, you can't. Only faith can guarantee your wish-thinking. You are only telling us that you have no idea about Jewish Culture which teaches that Tribal inheritance runs down only through the father. It means that to be of the Tribe of Judah, Jesus had to be Joseph's biological son.

Thanks to the NT, Jesus lost that chance. Don't even think about adoption because Jewish Culture left Tribal inheritance out of the rights enjoyed by adoptees in Israel. And there is one more thing if you are thinking about his mother Mary. She was from the Tribe of Levi if you read Luke 1:5,36 and, even if she had been from the Tribe of Judah, it would not help because according to the same Jewish Cultural rule the mother was responsible only to the Jewish identity but not the Tribal one. It means that if Jesus was not a biological son of Joseph, he was a Jew because of Mary but a Jew without a Tribe in Israel for having a Gentile for a father.

According to the famous Jewish Historian Flavius Josephus, to have a Gentile for a father was excessively common in the First Century in Israel as a result of Roman soldier's rapes of young Jewish ladies. So much so that thousands of bastards were born in Israel. Hence the answer the Jews gave to Jesus when this called them children of the Devil and they said, at least we are not children of fornication. (John 8:41,44) Perhaps they had in mind the catastrophic rape crimes perpetrated by the Romans in Israel.

Now, about Melchizedek, I have already written all that I needed in the thread, "The Truth About Melchizedek."

dialm
August 3rd, 2015, 04:57 AM
Magma Carta is a big boy document.

Can you give anything from history prior to the Magma Carta that is comparable to it?

In other words, what did the Magna Carta replace?

tetelestai
August 3rd, 2015, 05:27 AM
12. Conclusion - Can any one still claim that there is no RT in the NT? Hardly!

Of course there is.

The New Covenant has replaced the Old Covenant.

The law and the priesthood also changed:

(Heb 7:12) For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also.

The law of the spirit filled life in Christ Jesus has replaced the law of sin and death:

(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.

IOW, the Old Covenant, the old priesthood, and the old law have all be REPLACED by a New Covenant, a new priesthood, and a new law.

Ben Masada
August 3rd, 2015, 05:36 AM
Magma Carta is a big boy document.

Can you give anything from history prior to the Magma Carta that is comparable to it?

In other words, what did the Magna Carta replace?

The Magna Carta here is the most important document among many. The only thing in History more important than the Magna Carta was the delivery of the Decalogue to Israel at the Mount Sinai.

Ben Masada
August 3rd, 2015, 05:57 AM
1 - Of course there is. The New Covenant has replaced the Old Covenant.

2 - The law and the priesthood also changed:

3 - (Heb 7:12) For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also.

4 - The law of the spirit filled life in Christ Jesus has replaced the law of sin and death:

5 - (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.

6 - IOW, the Old Covenant, the old priesthood, and the old law have all be REPLACED by a New Covenant, a new priesthood, and a new law.

1 - Nice try! I suggest that you try it again because the New Covenant was made with the House of Israel and the House of Judah. Nothing to do with the Gentiles. (Jer. 31:31)

2 - Nice change! From the Priesthood according to the order of Aaron to the Priesthood according to the order of Melchizedek, the pagan king of the Canaanites. (Heb. 7:21)

3 - Not according to the real Jesus who said that as long as heaven and earth exist not a single letter of the Law will change. Have heaven and earth ceased to exist yet? (Mat. 5:17-19) I don't think so!

4 - What's the difference between the Law of spirit and the Law of the Decalogue? I don't believe you have a right answer to that.

5 - How could any thing in this word make one free from the Law of the Decalogue? The world would turn into a law of the jungle.

6 - The Law of the Decalogue has been replaced! By what law? Can you elaborate a little further?

Interplanner
August 3rd, 2015, 07:01 AM
Ben,
It's been good to find you, to work on these questions. I thought you would have put this in ECT, but here we are.

re what law to practice: Paul often dismissed the ceremonial and dietary laws, but never the core moral. I just found a good example of this while reading recently: I Cor 7:17+. (He says first that he proscribes this same thing in all churches). If a person was circumcised when called to be a Christian, they don't change that. Uncircumcised? Don't change it. Thus verse 19.

As for the RT issue, I don't think you've backed up quite far enough to grasp what is being said. It's back in 3:17. No one would write 3:17 unless Judaism had misunderstood the relation between the Promise and the Law. There was a replacement, and Paul is addressing that replacement. I think if you check commentary, they think Paul is referring to post-exilic Judaism and what it thought.

"Vandalize" (your term) villifies what the NT does. Instead, the NT is saying it is the fulfillment of many themes, motifs and images of the OT.

dialm
August 3rd, 2015, 08:22 AM
The Magna Carta here is the most important document among many. The only thing in History more important than the Magna Carta was the delivery of the Decalogue to Israel at the Mount Sinai.

One could say that the Magna Carta replaced Theocracy. Thank God for that!

Ben Masada
August 3rd, 2015, 09:03 AM
Ben,
It's been good to find you, to work on these questions. I thought you would have put this in ECT, but here we are.

re what law to practice: Paul often dismissed the ceremonial and dietary laws, but never the core moral. I just found a good example of this while reading recently: I Cor 7:17+. (He says first that he proscribes this same thing in all churches). If a person was circumcised when called to be a Christian, they don't change that. Uncircumcised? Don't change it. Thus verse 19.

As for the RT issue, I don't think you've backed up quite far enough to grasp what is being said. It's back in 3:17. No one would write 3:17 unless Judaism had misunderstood the relation between the Promise and the Law. There was a replacement, and Paul is addressing that replacement. I think if you check commentary, they think Paul is referring to post-exilic Judaism and what it thought.

"Vandalize" (your term) villifies what the NT does. Instead, the NT is saying it is the fulfillment of many themes, motifs and images of the OT.

Hi Interplanner! You say above that Paul often dismissed the ceremonial and dietary laws, but NEVER the core moral of the laws. I have heard never to say never because we never know.

Have you ever read Romans 7:1-7? It is about a Pauline allegory of the widow whose husband had died and she had become free of the law that kept her subject to him because of the marriage covenant. And now, with the death of her husband, she was set free of that law.

According to Paul, that allegory would point to the freedom from the Law with the death of Jesus. One may wonder what law was Paul talking about until he or she read the text again and stopped in verse 7. Here it is what it says, "...for I had not known lust, except the Law had said, 'You shall not covet.'"

Now, where is it written "Thou shall not covet?" In the Decalogue Interplanner; in the core moral of all the Jewish laws. God's own Law for Heaven's sake! And you tried to make it very clear that Paul had NEVER tried to dismiss the core moral of the laws. Something serious, isn't it? That's the core of Replacement Theology Interplanner; and you never say never again.

Ben Masada
August 3rd, 2015, 09:13 AM
One could say that the Magna Carta replaced Theocracy. Thank God for that!

I agree with you. I was never too friendly with that form of Government. The humanist side of me bends to the fact that men must learn how to govern themselves. And I believe that's God's will.

jamie
August 3rd, 2015, 09:53 AM
3 - Not according to the real Jesus who said that as long as heaven and earth exist not a single letter of the Law will change. Have heaven and earth ceased to exist yet? (Mat. 5:17-19) I don't think so!


The Torah hasn't changed, it has always been for Israel. Gentiles are not subject to biblical Jewish laws, you should know that.

dialm
August 3rd, 2015, 10:48 AM
jamie,

I really like those poodles. I had a toy poodle named Tia. She was my favorite all time and somewhat of a clown.

Maybe the Torah has changed? It certainly has less force. For example not one person can be legally stoned to death. That is harsh and unusual punishment. A barbaric act at the very least.

tetelestai
August 3rd, 2015, 11:28 AM
1 - Nice try! I suggest that you try it again because the New Covenant was made with the House of Israel and the House of Judah. Nothing to do with the Gentiles. (Jer. 31:31)

Read Hosea, the Israelites from the 10 tribes became mixed with pagan Gentiles when God scattered them, told them they weren't a people, and had no mercy on them.

700 years later, the vast majority of descendants of Ephraim couldn't be distinguished from a pagan Gentile.



2 - Nice change! From the Priesthood according to the order of Aaron to the Priesthood according to the order of Melchizedek, the pagan king of the Canaanites. (Heb. 7:21)

(Gen 14:18) And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.

Regardless of who you think Melchizedek was, or wasn't, the priesthood changed, and therefore, so did the law.


3 - Not according to the real Jesus who said that as long as heaven and earth exist not a single letter of the Law will change. Have heaven and earth ceased to exist yet? (Mat. 5:17-19) I don't think so!

We now live in the new heavens and the new earth.

The old heavens and old earth came to a complete end in 70AD


4 - What's the difference between the Law of spirit and the Law of the Decalogue? I don't believe you have a right answer to that.

The law of the spirit filled life in Christ Jesus is what saves people from the law of sin and death.

Eternal life is only through faith in Christ Jesus, not the law of sin and death.


5 - How could any thing in this word make one free from the Law of the Decalogue? The world would turn into a law of the jungle.

Faith in Christ Jesus sets one free from the law of sin and death.


6 - The Law of the Decalogue has been replaced! By what law? Can you elaborate a little further?

The law of the spirit filled life in Christ Jesus.

The old law (the law of sin and death) has been replaced.

Believers in Christ Jesus are the children of Abraham, they are the children of the free woman (Sarah). Those who try to keep the law, and/or those who claim they are physical descendants of Abraham are the children of Hagar the slave woman.

jamie
August 3rd, 2015, 02:25 PM
Don't even think about adoption because Jewish Culture left Tribal inheritance out of the rights enjoyed by adoptees in Israel.


Is that why Ephraim and Manasseh never received land?

tetelestai
August 3rd, 2015, 02:31 PM
Is that why Ephraim and Manasseh never received land?

Jacob told Joseph the following regarding Ephraim and Manasseh:

(Gen 48:19 KJV) And his father refused, and said, I know it, my son, I know it: he also shall become a people, and he also shall be great: but truly his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude of nations.

Can you tell us the great people the descendants of Manasseh became?

Can you tell us the multitude of nations the descendants of Ephraim became?

dialm
August 3rd, 2015, 11:55 PM
If it is ok to replace a Theocracy then why stop there?

Why not replace the Torah? Especially since the Torah does not seem to hold any particular power.

And if the Torah is replaced then what is the next logical step?

No. You are stuck with a Theocracy. You can't have anything else.

Ben Masada
August 4th, 2015, 08:11 AM
The Torah hasn't changed, it has always been for Israel. Gentiles are not subject to biblical Jewish laws, you should know that.

Yes, I do know that, but then again, why all this anti-Jewish attitude to replace the Theology of Israel with the NT and, especially by using a Jew whose Faith was Judaism to preach against his own Faith?

tetelestai
August 4th, 2015, 08:55 AM
especially by using a Jew whose Faith was Judaism to preach against his own Faith?

Because the Apostle Paul knew that the New Covenant had replaced the Old Covenant.

Paul was a minister of the New Covenant.

dialm
August 4th, 2015, 09:36 AM
Yes, I do know that, but then again, why all this anti-Jewish attitude to replace the Theology of Israel with the NT and, especially by using a Jew whose Faith was Judaism to preach against his own Faith?

To be fair you might want to consider giving a time line. When did Judism start. Important points in time. Etc.

Ben Masada
August 4th, 2015, 10:26 AM
1 - Read Hosea, the Israelites from the 10 tribes became mixed with pagan Gentiles when God scattered them, told them they weren't a people, and had no mercy on them.

2 -700 years later, the vast majority of descendants of Ephraim couldn't be distinguished from a pagan Gentile.

3 - (Gen 14:18) And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.

4 - Regardless of who you think Melchizedek was, or wasn't, the priesthood changed, and therefore, so did the law.

5 - We now live in the new heavens and the new earth.

6 - The old heavens and old earth came to a complete end in 70AD

7 - The law of the spirit filled life in Christ Jesus is what saves people from the law of sin and death.

8- Eternal life is only through faith in Christ Jesus, not the law of sin and death.

9 - Faith in Christ Jesus sets one free from the law of sin and death.

10 - The law of the spirit filled life in Christ Jesus.

11 - The old law (the law of sin and death) has been replaced.

12 - Believers in Christ Jesus are the children of Abraham, they are the children of the free woman (Sarah). Those who try to keep the law, and/or those who claim they are physical descendants of Abraham are the children of Hagar the slave woman.

1 - That's when the Lord rejected Israel and confirmed Judah to remain as a People before the Lord forever. (Psalm 78:67-70)

2 - To signify that the Divine rejection of Israel was forever. (Psalm 78:67-70)

3 - He, Abraham was the priest of the Most High God and not Melchizedek.

4 - And you have made a liar out of Jesus for having said that as long as heavens and earth existed, not a single commandment of the Law would pass away. I think heaven and earth are still around. (Mag. 5:17-19)

5 - I can see where you live. No need to tell me.

6 - But we are back and the Law still exists. So, for me, Jesus was right; for you he was a liar.

7 - And people continue in their sins and dying every day. (Ecclesiastes 7:20) What happened?

8 - First, you made of Jesus a liar and now you want to do the same with God Himself? He said that man cannot live forever. (Gen. 3:22)

9 - But only after heaven and earth pass away. (Mat. 5:17-19) Have they passed away yet? I don't think so.

10 - Is it the same you made a liar out of him? (Mat. 5:17-19)

11 - Have you torn away the page of the Decalogue from your Bible?

12 - Congratulations! You have scored high in the Pauline test of Replacement Theology.

jamie
August 4th, 2015, 11:48 AM
God replaced biblical Judaism by destroying his sanctuary and firing his priests. You have no altar for atonement and you reject God's atonement through his Son.

You have a form of religion for what it is worth.

dialm
August 4th, 2015, 02:02 PM
Today, if person could prove it, a descendent of Ephriam would have no problem being counted in the religion of Judaism, (probably because they are a defeated people). But during the reign of kings this would not be so true. Certainly Ephriam would reject the title of Judah after the rebellion. And you will never be able to make Joshua out to be of Judah. Ephriam's religion was not Judaism. That only came after his complete collapse.

dialm
August 4th, 2015, 02:41 PM
So if a person wanted to be honest then they might think about how it was that Judah replaced Ephriam. And really we have the Kings replacing the Theocracy. Judah replacing Ephriam. The spoken word replacing the Torah. The Levites replacing the Kings. The Christians replacing Judah. The writings of Paul replacing the spoken word. And the Word, Christ replacing messiah.

Did Israel leave its former estate?

tetelestai
August 4th, 2015, 04:31 PM
1 - That's when the Lord rejected Israel and confirmed Judah to remain as a People before the Lord forever. (Psalm 78:67-70)

2 - To signify that the Divine rejection of Israel was forever. (Psalm 78:67-70)

However, the promise of a New Covenant was made to the House of Israel (in addition to the House of Judah).

Therefore, the promise was still valid in the first century.

tetelestai
August 4th, 2015, 04:43 PM
4 - And you have made a liar out of Jesus for having said that as long as heavens and earth existed, not a single commandment of the Law would pass away. I think heaven and earth are still around. (Mag. 5:17-19)


"old heavens and old earth" & "new heavens and new earth" is covenantal symbolism. It's not literal.

The old heavens and the old earth (Old Covenant) passed away completely in 70AD. We now live in the new heavens and the new earth (New Covenant).

As a Jew, you should be more aware of OT symbolism.

(Deut 30:19) This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live

Or, maybe you think Moses literally had the literal earth and the literal heavens literally witness against the Israelites?

dialm
August 4th, 2015, 06:38 PM
Just looking at ancient Isreal as an outsider it seems that all the same rules applied to that nation as to any other nation past or present. It takes real power to rule. The Judges had power. The Kings had power. The Priests never had any power. They never ruled. Even in the days of Paul the Priests never really ruled.

To make Replacement Theology work takes power. I really don't see Judaism doing a whole lot. I see economics in motion. But on the religious side I'm only seeing complaints. They are interesting complaints. But the problem is they are just complaints.

We could get philosophical. We could use marriage as an example. But who really wants to hear it? Ancient Isreal was married to the God of the Old Testament. We can't do anything with that. The current Replacement people have replaced ancient Israel and that God. I'm glad. Never really cared for that God. He never loved me. Always worrying about His law. I can't do His law. So I replaced it.

Ben Masada
August 4th, 2015, 11:44 PM
God replaced biblical Judaism by destroying his sanctuary and firing his priests. You have no altar for atonement and you reject God's atonement through his Son.

You have a form of religion for what it is worth.

And you have rejected the prophets of the Lord by denying God's Word throughout them that no one can make atonement for the sins of another. That every one is responsible for his own sins through God's Law. (Jer. 31:30; Ezek. 18:20) BTW, if you are interested on the role of God's Law I suggest that you read Psalm 119.

Ben Masada
August 5th, 2015, 12:00 AM
Today, if person could prove it, a descendent of Ephriam would have no problem being counted in the religion of Judaism, (probably because they are a defeated people). But during the reign of kings this would not be so true. Certainly Ephriam would reject the title of Judah after the rebellion. And you will never be able to make Joshua out to be of Judah. Ephriam's religion was not Judaism. That only came after his complete collapse.

You are mixing up Politics with Faith. Ephraim had nothing politically to do with Judah but as Faith was concerned, they had remained of one mind until Jeroboam replaced Judaism with the paganism of the Gentiles. And all because he was afraid that the people would eventually abandon Ephraim and return to Judah. (I Kings 12:27,28)

Ben Masada
August 5th, 2015, 12:08 AM
So if a person wanted to be honest then they might think about how it was that Judah replaced Ephriam. And really we have the Kings replacing the Theocracy. Judah replacing Ephriam. The spoken word replacing the Torah. The Levites replacing the Kings. The Christians replacing Judah. The writings of Paul replacing the spoken word. And the Word, Christ replacing messiah.

Did Israel leave its former estate?

Judah did not replace Ephraim. That was the "Hand" of God to reject Ephraim and confirm Judah to continue as a People before the Lord forever. (Psa. 78:67-70) That was the Word of God and not the word of Paul to claim replacement of Judaism with his Christianity.

The former state of Israel was Judaism with Judah. They adopted the religion of the Gentiles and remained with it till they could no longer distinguish from the pagans as we have today with the Lost Tribes of Israel.

Ben Masada
August 5th, 2015, 12:13 AM
However, the promise of a New Covenant was made to the House of Israel (in addition to the House of Judah).

Therefore, the promise was still valid in the first century.

That's about 10% of Ephraim that succeeded to escape from Assyria and joined Judah in the South. So, the New Covenant was established with those from the House of Israel and all those from the House of Judah. (Jer. 31:31)

Ben Masada
August 5th, 2015, 12:24 AM
One could say that the Magna Carta replaced Theocracy. Thank God for that!

"One could say..." is good for Christians who do not know enough of God's Word to quote properly. The Theocracy was replaced by the last Judge Samuel at the demand of the People that had got tired of Theocracy. (I Sam. 8:5)

Ben Masada
August 5th, 2015, 12:50 AM
1 - "old heavens and old earth" & "new heavens and new earth" is covenantal symbolism. It's not literal.

2 - The old heavens and the old earth (Old Covenant) passed away completely in 70AD. We now live in the new heavens and the new earth (New Covenant).

3 - As a Jew, you should be more aware of OT symbolism.

4 - (Deut 30:19) This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live.

5 - Or, maybe you think Moses literally had the literal earth and the literal heavens literally witness against the Israelites?

1 - Do you think Jews are that stupid not to know that? But the New heaven and new earth aka the New Covenant has been established with the House of Israel and the House of Judah and not with Gentiles. (Jer. 31:31) Nice try though!

2 - Right! But the New Covenant with the House of Israel and the House of Judah and not with Gentiles, unless according to Isa. 56:1-8.

3 - And as a Christian, you should be more aware of New Covenant.

4 - This was a message to the Jews through Moses, not to the Gentiles.

5 - Where is your metaphorical spirit of interpretation? You did a show with OT symbolism and now with Deut. 30:19 you are no longer sure? Let me tell you that "To call heaven and earth as witnesses against someone is only an expression to literally mean what one says which ought to be taken seriously.

Ben Masada
August 5th, 2015, 01:23 AM
1 - Just looking at ancient Isreal as an outsider it seems that all the same rules applied to that nation as to any other nation past or present. It takes real power to rule. The Judges had power. The Kings had power. The Priests never had any power. They never ruled. Even in the days of Paul the Priests never really ruled.

2 - To make Replacement Theology work takes power. I really don't see Judaism doing a whole lot. I see economics in motion. But on the religious side I'm only seeing complaints. They are interesting complaints. But the problem is they are just complaints.

3 - We could get philosophical. We could use marriage as an example. But who really wants to hear it? Ancient Isreal was married to the God of the Old Testament. We can't do anything with that. The current Replacement people have replaced ancient Israel and that God. I'm glad. Never really cared for that God. He never loved me. Always worrying about His law. I can't do His law. So I replaced it.

1 - You seem not to be studying your Bible as you should. The priests ruled for more than 500 years during the hegemony of the Hasmonians starting with the Maccabees. And they had more power even than a common king. That's the reason for the insurrection by the Zadokites against the Hasmonians that could not agree that priests should accumulate both positions as kings and priests. That's when the prophecy of Israel as a kingdom of priests and a holy nation had fulfillment. (Exod. 19:6) The Zadokites proved to be too week to fight the Hasmonians and fled to the wilderness of the Negev and turned into the Sect of the Sadducees which eventually got to power only at the time of the Romans.

2 - Do you think I am the only one fighting Replacement Theology? You might want to think again. Conversions of Christians to Judaism show some evidences.

3 - So, the Law has been replaced with what, chaos? What do you guys want to live with, law of the jungle? If the Law was not obeyed no one would be able to live with some peace. You should be thankful for the Law we have brought into almost every country in the world. No one can live without law. I can prove salvation through the Law and you can't without it. Your illusion that someone has paid for your contradictions to the Law, you might want to think again. It is even a demonstration against the Prophets of the Lord. (Jer. 31:30; Ezek. 18:20)

tetelestai
August 5th, 2015, 06:00 AM
That's about 10% of Ephraim that succeeded to escape from Assyria and joined Judah in the South.

Yes, but the 90% of Israelites from Ephraim that were removed still had the promise.

Remember, Joseph had the birthright blessing. God said Manasseh would be great, and Ephraim would become a multitude of nations.

Also Ezekiel tells us that God would join the stick of Ephraim with the stick of Judah.


So, the New Covenant was established with those from the House of Israel and all those from the House of Judah. (Jer. 31:31)

It's good that you believe that the NC was established. However, I don't know how you can believe the NC was established, but at the same time claim Jesus was not the Messiah.

Who joined the two sticks together?

Who's blood was shed when the NC was made?

tetelestai
August 5th, 2015, 06:13 AM
1 - Do you think Jews are that stupid not to know that?

You're the one calling Jesus a liar based on the fact that planet earth is no different today than planet earth was 2,000 years ago.

If you understood that "new heavens and new earth" symbolized the New Covenant, than you wouldn't be calling Jesus a liar.


But the New heaven and new earth aka the New Covenant has been established with the House of Israel and the House of Judah and not with Gentiles. (Jer. 31:31) Nice try though!

As I said in my previous post, the Israelite descendants of Ephraim became undistinguishable from pagan Gentiles 700 years after God scattered them, BUT the promise of the NC was still valid.

So when the NC was put in place, the gospel was preached to everyone. The Gentiles became fellow heirs of all the promises. This is how all of Israel became saved.


2 - Right! But the New Covenant with the House of Israel and the House of Judah and not with Gentiles, unless according to Isa. 56:1-8.

supra


3 - And as a Christian, you should be more aware of New Covenant.

As a Jew you should accept it, and understand that in the NC there is no difference between Jew and Gentile. Both are one new man in Christ.


4 - This was a message to the Jews through Moses, not to the Gentiles.

Yes I know, my point was to show the symbolism.


5 - Where is your metaphorical spirit of interpretation? You did a show with OT symbolism and now with Deut. 30:19 you are no longer sure?

I am sure, it is you who claimed "the new heaven and new earth" was literal.


Let me tell you that "To call heaven and earth as witnesses against someone is only an expression to literally mean what one says which ought to be taken seriously.

Actually it means two witnesses.

The creation of a new covenant required the establishment of a new heaven and new earth (two witnesses) for the new law.

Ben Masada
August 5th, 2015, 06:59 AM
1 - Yes, but the 90% of Israelites from Ephraim that were removed still had the promise.

2 - Remember, Joseph had the birthright blessing. God said Manasseh would be great, and Ephraim would become a multitude of nations.

3 - Also Ezekiel tells us that God would join the stick of Ephraim with the stick of Judah.

4 - It's good that you believe that the NC was established. However, I don't know how you can believe the NC was established, but at the same time claim Jesus was not the Messiah.

5 - Who joined the two sticks together?

6 - Who's blood was shed when the NC was made?

1 - But not as a People or kingdom but as part of Judah, the new Israel from the branch of Judah. (Isa. 48:1)

2 - No, Joseph had no longer anything to do with the blessing of the firstborn. The Lord had rejected the Tabernacle of Joseph and to prevent the return of the Tribes to the Land of Israel, He rooted out the Tribal system from the Land of Israel by establishing a new world order of one People in one Kingdom called Judah. (Ezek. 37:22) And, named the New Covenant with the House of Judah and those 10% from the House of Israel. BTW, the Firstborn system had been removed since the day when the Levites replaced the Firstborns of Israel. (Numb. 3:12,41,45)

3 - That's what happened in Ezek. 37:22 and Isa. 48:1.

4 - Jesus or the NT had absolutely nothing to do with the New Covenant of Jer. 31:31. The NT had every thing to do with Paul, not Jesus.

5 - History decreed by the Lord Almighty. That's in Ezek. 37:22)

6 - The blood of the Jews shed during exile in Babylon when for 70 years they had suffered to pay for their sins. (Dan. 9:24-27) During all that time (70 years) there was never a single animal sacrifice and, at the end, the transgression that had caused the exile had finished, their sins had ended and reconciliation had been made for their iniquity and the Everlasting Righteousness had returned. (Dan. 9:24-27)

tetelestai
August 5th, 2015, 07:11 AM
He rooted out the Tribal system from the Land of Israel by establishing a new world order of one People in one Kingdom called Judah. (Ezek. 37:22) And, named the New Covenant with the House of Judah and those 10% from the House of Israel.

Keep reading Exk 37

(Ezk 37:24) And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.

You know as well as I do that there hasn't been a king in Israel and/or Judah since King Zedekiah.

God said that when the stick of Judah would be joined with the stick of Ephraim, one king would reign over them.

Since you believe the two sticks have been joined together, please tell us who the king was?

tetelestai
August 5th, 2015, 07:15 AM
4 - Jesus or the NT had absolutely nothing to do with the New Covenant of Jer. 31:31. The NT had every thing to do with Paul, not Jesus.


(Matt 26:28) for this is my blood, which confirms the covenant between God and his people. It is poured out as a sacrifice to forgive the sins of many.

Jesus shed His blood, which confirmed the covenant.

Jesus became King of kings

Ben Masada
August 5th, 2015, 07:33 AM
1 - You're the one calling Jesus a liar based on the fact that planet earth is no different today than planet earth was 2,000 years ago.

2 - If you understood that "new heavens and new earth" symbolized the New Covenant, than you wouldn't be calling Jesus a liar.

3 - As I said in my previous post, the Israelite descendants of Ephraim became undistinguishable from pagan Gentiles 700 years after God scattered them, BUT the promise of the NC was still valid.

4 - So when the NC was put in place, the gospel was preached to everyone. The Gentiles became fellow heirs of all the promises. This is how all of Israel became saved.

5 - As a Jew you should accept it, and understand that in the NC there is no difference between Jew and Gentile. Both are one new man in Christ.

6 - I am sure, it is you who claimed "the new heaven and new earth" was literal.

7 - The creation of a new covenant required the establishment of a new heaven and new earth (two witnesses) for the new law.

1 - You are the one implying that Jesus was a liar, not me. It happened when I quoted Mat. 5:17-19 that Jesus was saying that no commandment of the Law would pass away as long as heaven and earth existed; and you affirmed that heaven and earth had passed away. Be careful with what you are saying. I would never call a loyal Jew a liar.

2 - You are the one who is calling Jesus a liar, not I. A loyal Jew would never call another loyal Jew a liar. The new heaven and new earth means a "New World Order" with a new Israel in one Kingdom without any more division of tribes.

3 - The New Covenant was with the House of Israel (aka 10% that escaped Assyria) and the House of Judah. One Kingdom without distinction of Tribes. (Ezek. 37:22)

4 - When the NC was put in place, the "New World Order" had been organized with a single kingdom of Israel composed of Judah and 10% of Israel. (Ezek. 37:22)

5 - Why in the "Christ" of Paul, to fulfill the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology? Thank you but no, thanks!

6 - Yes, that's the "New Old Order," according to Ezek. 37:22.

7 - No new Law as Jesus himself confirmed in his parable of the Richman and Lazarus that the only way to escape hell-fire is by listening to "Moses" aka the Law. (Luke 16:31)

& - At least learn how to quote! How can one debate the Bible without Biblical evidences?

Ben Masada
August 5th, 2015, 08:04 AM
Keep reading Exk 37

1 - (Ezk 37:24) And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.

2 - You know as well as I do that there hasn't been a king in Israel and/or Judah since King Zedekiah.

3 - God said that when the stick of Judah would be joined with the stick of Ephraim, one king would reign over them.

4 - Since you believe the two sticks have been joined together, please tell us who the king was?

1 - Yes, no more the kingdom of Israel to walk after the judgments of the pagans whose statutes Jeroboam of Israel decided to follow.

2 - How about Bibi Netanyahu, is it not the Prime Minister the same as a king? You are way out my friend!

3 - Quote please, or I will have to start ignoring your posts! There is no stick of Ephraim. There is only one stick. The stick of Judah. (Ezek. 37:12) This is the New Covenant; Have you forgotten?

4 - Zedekiah was the last king made so by Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon.

Ben Masada
August 5th, 2015, 08:22 AM
1 - (Matt 26:28) for this is my blood, which confirms the covenant between God and his people. It is poured out as a sacrifice to forgive the sins of many.

2 - Jesus shed His blood, which confirmed the covenant.

3 - Jesus became King of kings

1 - Of course! I had forgotten the gospel of Paul. This is the gospel of your religion, not mine. No one can pour his blood as a sacrifice to no one else. (Jer. 31:30; Ezek. 18:20)

2 - No, Jesus shed no blood for no one. He would not contradict the Prophets of the Almighty.

3 - Perhaps but only according to your faith. History is evidence of no such a thing. You need to pay homage to Jesus at least by letting his memory rest in peace. (Eccles. 9:5,6)