WHICH CHURCH WAS HEBREWS WRITTEN TO?

[JudgeRightly]

I would be happy to obey something Jesus said even if no one else said it.

So why haven't you sold all that you own yet?

Jesus said to him, [JESUS]“If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”[/JESUS] - Matthew 19:21 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...1&version=NKJV

Then Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, [JESUS]“One thing you lack: Go your way, sell whatever you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, take up the cross, and follow Me.”[/JESUS] - Mark 10:21 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...1&version=NKJV

So when Jesus heard these things, He said to him, [JESUS]“You still lack one thing. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”[/JESUS] - Luke 18:22 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...2&version=NKJV

Go on, go sell all you own, distribute it to the poor, and then take up your cross and follow Christ.

Unlike you, Paul did not reject the teachings of Jesus

But you do, hypocrite.

 

[Right Divider]

How many times must something be proclaimed before it is accepted as true?

That's not the point at all. The point is that if the "new covenant" were so important for gentiles, the apostle of the gentiles would have mentioned more an just TWO times in his THIRTEEN epistles.

ONE of those times simply being a retelling of what Christ did with the TWELVE apostles that will sit on TWELVE thrones judging the TWELVE tribes of ISRAEL.

That is EXTREMELY spare coverage of a doctrine that you seem to think is vitally important.

 

[Shasta]

So why haven't you sold all that you own yet?

Jesus said to him, [JESUS]“If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”[/JESUS] - Matthew 19:21 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...1&version=NKJV

Then Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, [JESUS]“One thing you lack: Go your way, sell whatever you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, take up the cross, and follow Me.”[/JESUS] - Mark 10:21 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...1&version=NKJV

So when Jesus heard these things, He said to him, [JESUS]“You still lack one thing. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”[/JESUS] - Luke 18:22 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...2&version=NKJV

Go on, go sell all you own, distribute it to the poor, and then take up your cross and follow Christ.

But you do, hypocrite.

Did Jesus call EVERY follower to give up what they own and distribute it to the poor? What about His friends Lazarus and his sisters? What about all the others who followed Him? There is no evidence that ALL FOLLOWERS of Jesus divested themselves of all their money and possessions. For a time many members of the Church at Jerusalem did this but this was their choice. As Peter said to Ananias:

3 ...“Ananias, how is it that Satan has filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and withhold some of the proceeds from the land? 4DID IT NOT BELONGTO YOU before it was sold? And after it was sold, WAS IT NOT AT YOUR DISPOSAL? How could you conceive such a deed in your heart?You have not lied to men,but to God!”
(Acts 5:3-4)

This shows that giving up ones possessions was not taken by the early Church as a COMMAND to every last person. Even in modern times, does not God call SOME people to give up their possessions or surrender their lifestyle in order to go live a poor country for the sake of the Gospel? Does God not have the right to call SOME to various sacrifices according to His call on their life, or must He call EVERYONE to the exactly the same purpose? What He DOES demand is that we believe in Him enough to give up the central control of our lives to Him and this is not only true of what Jesus and the Twelve preached. Paul also agreed that faith and an obedient response to God's will are inseparable.

…16 Do you not know that when you OFFER YOURSELVES as obedient slaves, you are slaves to the ONE you OBEY, whether you are slaves to sin leading to death, or to OBEDIENCE leading to RIGHTEOUSNESS? 17 But thanks be to God that,though you once were slaves to sin,you wholeheartedly OBEYED the form of teaching to which you were committed.18 You HAVE BEEN SET FREE from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.…
(Romans 6:16-18)

Speaking of the life the Romans USED to live Paul says that they were once slaves of sin. Then he shows them in their current state as slaves of righteousness. When were that transformed from one state to another? It happened when they OBEYED the gospel. Faith in God must be accompanied by surrender and submission. If we are slaves of Christ we will, if He so directs, give up some or even all our money to whatever cause He wills.

 

[Shasta]

That's not the point at all. The point is that if the "new covenant" were so important for gentiles, the apostle of the gentiles would have mentioned more an just TWO times in his THIRTEEN epistles.

ONE of those times simply being a retelling of what Christ did with the TWELVE apostles that will sit on TWELVE thrones judging the TWELVE tribes of ISRAEL.

That is EXTREMELY spare coverage of a doctrine that you seem to think is vitally important.

Every time the blood of Christ or the cross is mentioned it is a reference to the sacrifice of the Lamb of God who, like the Passover Lamb delivered us from judgement and death. They may not mention the new covenant the principal that we are joined to God through the cross is always the same.

Show me where it says ONLY the Twelve eat of Communion? As I read it every member of the Body is invited to partake of it. The cross is the only way of salvation for both.

 

[Right Divider]

Every time the blood of Christ or the cross is mentioned it is a reference to the sacrifice of the Lamb of God who, like the Passover Lamb delivered us from judgement and death. They may not mention the new covenant the principal that we are joined to God through the cross is always the same.

Show me where it says ONLY the Twelve eat of Communion? As I read it every member of the Body is invited to partake of it. The cross is the only way of salvation for both.

That is true. But I have a news flash for you. The blood of Christ applies to the body of Christ WITHOUT a covenant.

 

[Theo102]

When Jesus had his earthly ministry, he made his Last Will and Testament. Then he died and it went into force. It is also called a Covenant because Jesus is God and lives.

"God" is ambiguous, just like diatheke. Something cannot be a covenant and a testament at the same time.

Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Romans 6:3

He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err.
Mark 12:27

 

[Theo102]

What Christ established was not merely a promise or agreement, it was a BLOOD COVENANT, a binding of LIFE to LIFE.

The covenants were primarily about law, not blood. Blood sacrifice was repudiated by the prophets.

 

[Theo102]

That the sacrifice of the Messiah would bring about the forgiveness of sins was foretold by the prophets.

No, it wasn't. Those closest text to rising on the third day is Hosea 6:2

And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
Luke 24:46

John the Baptist, the forerunner, foresaw this and proclaimed it to the people when he said: "Behold the LAMB OF GOD who takes away the sin of the world."

Sin can be taken away without sacrifice.

Come now, and let us reason together, saith YHWH: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
Isaiah 1:18

 

[Shasta]

One basic principle from God's word is that "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin." John the Baptist whom God sent to proclaim the coming of Christ called Him "the LAMB of God that takes away the sin of the WORLD" Why did he call Jesus the LAMB? He did so because the blood of the Passover Lamb had to be put on the door posts of the houses of the Hebrews in Egypt. This was not their idea. It came from God and only by obeying His command could they be rescued from judgment and death. Christ was called the sacrifice Lamb throughout the NT. His blood was said to be the source of our REDEMPTION.
Jesus work on the cross affected our redemption. If there had been any other way, if it had been possible to permanently deal with sin without Christ having to go to the cross don't you think God would have let Jesus off the hook when He prayed:

42 “Father, if You are willing, take this cup from Me. Yet not My will, but Yours be done.” 43Thenan angel from heaven appeared to Him and strengthened Him. 44And in His anguish, He prayed more earnestly, and His sweat became like drops of blood falling to the ground.
(Luke 23:42-43)

Christ's death is inextricably tied to our redemption which is why Paul said:
7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgivenessof our trespasses,according to the riches of His grace,
(Ephesians 1:7)
Our redemption has been affected through or BY MEANS OF His blood. So integral was salvation to the sacrificial death of Christ that Paul called what he preached "The Word of the CROSS" but you say His death was not necessary that it would have been sufficient to continue animal sacrifices.
Ever since Abel, God had been leading people who sought Him to offer blood sacrifices indicating that one day the Lamb of God would come and offer Himself. God had been planning this from beginning of the world which is why Christ was called "the lamb slain before the foundation of the world"

Sin can be taken away without sacrifice.

Sin is not taken away by animal sacrifice. God instituted animal sacrifice so that God could temporarily cover their sins and set them aside but this was a temporary measure not a permanent solution. If sacrifices had been sufficient there would be no reason to halt them much less put to death the Son of God. Ultimately, all sin past, present and future would have to be forgiven through the blood of Christ. Isaiah prophesied very clearly God's intention when he said:

…4 Surely He took on our infirmities and carried our sorrows; yet we considered Him stricken by God, struck down and afflicted. 5 But Hewas pierced for our transgressions,He was bruised for our iniquities;the punishment that brought us peace was upon Him,and by His stripes we are healed. 6 We all like sheep have gone astray, each one has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all
(Isaiah 58:4-6)

 

[God's Truth]

"God" is ambiguous, just like diatheke. Something cannot be a covenant and a testament at the same time.

Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Romans 6:3

He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err.
Mark 12:27

The Bible says testament and covenant, so now you must know you are wrong.

 

[Shasta]

That's not the point at all. The point is that if the "new covenant" were so important for gentiles, the apostle of the gentiles would have mentioned more an just TWO times in his THIRTEEN epistles.

ONE of those times simply being a retelling of what Christ did with the TWELVE apostles that will sit on TWELVE thrones judging the TWELVE tribes of ISRAEL.

That is EXTREMELY spare coverage of a doctrine that you seem to think is vitally important.

I can only find TWO scriptures about the disciples judging Israel on twelve thrones. By your reasoning these TWO VERSES would be "EXTREMELY spare coverage of a doctrine that you seem to think is important." The fact that communion has been universally practiced by believers since the time of Jesus bears ample testimony that the cup of the New Covenant has been extended to all believers. In fact, EVERY TIME communion is held this truth of the New Covenant is proclaimed again.

Now let us look at exactly what Jesus told the Twelve:

27 “Look,” Peter replied, “we have left everything to follow You. What then will there be for us?” 28 Jesus said to them,“Truly I tell you,in the renewal of all things,when the Son of Man sits on His gloriousthrone, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribesof Israel.
(Matthew 19:27-28)
Their reward will be bestowed on them because they were willing to give up everything to follow Jesus at a time when His glory and crowns was invisible to the world

Here is the next verse:
29 And EVERYONE who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or fields for the sake of My name will receive a hundredfold and will inherit ETERNAL LIFE
(Matthew 19:29)
The reward for EVERYONE who has left all to follow Him is an hundredfold multiplication of family ties in the Kingdom and ETERNAL LIFE with Him in Glory which is the greatest reward of all.

The only other scripture about this, as far as I can tell, is in Luke:

27 For who is greater, the one who reclines at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines? But I am among you as the One who serves. 28 You are the ones who have stood by Me in My trials. 29 And I bestow on you a kingdom, just as My Father has bestowed one on Me, 30 so that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom,and sit on thrones,judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
(Luke 22:29-30)
You take this to mean that ONLY the Twelve will eat and drink of the Lord's table in the Kingdom. Still is the Lord really saying that NOBODY ELSE will be allowed to sit at His table when He comes? If that is the case, then the Lord's table must be very small and His provision very meager indeed, considering the millions that will present themselves to God praising him for redeeming them by His BLOOD. All of this innumerable multitude will celebrate at the wedding supper of the Lamb.

Referring to the [Gentile] Centurion who had demonstrated such great faith, Jesus said:

11 ...MANY will come from the east and the west to share the banquet with Abraham,Isaac,and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.
(Matthew 8:11)
Multitudes from all corners of the earth will participate in His banquet - Gentiles and Jews.

Does His promise to the Twelve mean that they and only they will rule and reign in the Kingdom? No, according to the word others will be given a measure of authority also:
…11 This is a trustworthy saying: If we died with Him, we will also live with Him; 12ifwe endure,we will also REIGN with Him;if we deny Him,He will also deny us;
(2 Timothy 2:11)

 

[Theo102]

The Bible says testament and covenant, so now you must know you are wrong.

Non sequitur, the Bible's translation issues are not my problem.
Essentially you're just defending the opinion of whoever translated the text from Greek to English, since the Greek only says diatheke.

 

[God's Truth]

Non sequitur, the Bible's translation issues are not my problem.
Essentially you're just defending the opinion of whoever translated the text from Greek to English, since the Greek only says diatheke.

You don't trust the Bible is correct that is your problem.

 

[Theo102]

You don't trust the Bible is correct that is your problem.

Which version do you think I should trust?

 

[Right Divider]

I can only find TWO scriptures about the disciples judging Israel on twelve thrones. By your reasoning these TWO VERSES would be "EXTREMELY spare coverage of a doctrine that you seem to think is important." The fact that communion has been universally practiced by believers since the time of Jesus bears ample testimony that the cup of the New Covenant has been extended to all believers. In fact, EVERY TIME communion is held this truth of the New Covenant is proclaimed again.

Jesus saying that TWELVE apostles will sit on TWELVE thrones judging the TWELVE tribes of ISRAEL is completely clear and does not need any clarification.

NOWHERE does Paul tell a single gentile that they are under the new covenant. Not even ONE single time.

When Paul speaks of the "cup of blessing", he only mentions the blood and no covenant.

1Co 10:16 KJV The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?​

As I said the BLOOD covers Jew and gentiles alike. The body of Christ is NOT under any covenant.

You are somehow convinced that the blood requires a covenant, it does NOT.

 

[God's Truth]

Jesus saying that TWELVE apostles will sit on TWELVE thrones judging the TWELVE tribes of ISRAEL is completely clear and does not need any clarification.

NOWHERE does Paul tell a single gentile that they are under the new covenant. Not even ONE single time.

When Paul speaks of the "cup of blessing", he only mentions the blood and no covenant.

1Co 10:16 KJV The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?​

As I said the BLOOD covers Jew and gentiles alike. The body of Christ is NOT under any covenant.

You are somehow convinced that the blood requires a covenant, it does NOT.

Paul is the minister of the new covenant.

A person cannot belong to God unless it is a covenant.

Paul explains how no one can change a testament or covenant.

But you have Paul making changes to the one Jesus gave.


Luke 22:20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

1 Corinthians 10:16
Is not the cup of blessing that we bless a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?

2 Corinthians 3:6
And He has qualified us as ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

 

[God's Truth]

Which version do you think I should trust?

Get Jesus' teachings in the New Testament and start obeying them, then ask God for what you desire.

As for myself, I grew up on Catholic Bibles, then after getting saved I prayed about it and went and got a Bible in our English that is used nowadays.

I do use the King James Version along with a translation in English we can understand.

The NIV is an International version, meaning that many different denominations got together and had to agree.

I do not believe in any denomination, but it is good to know that many of different denominations had to agree.

I do not use the New King James Version, or the English Standard Version, because it is translated by Calvinists.

 

[Right Divider]

Paul is the minister of the new covenant.

Again, one can minister the covenant without being under it.

A person cannot belong to God unless it is a covenant.

Made up... not in the Bible.

Paul explains how no one can change a testament or covenant.

But you have Paul making changes to the one Jesus gave.

Actually, it is YOU that is changing the covenant. The Bible says that the new covenant is between GOD and ISRAEL. It's too bad that you disagree with the Bible.

 

[God's Truth]

Again, one can minister the covenant without being under it.

What?!

Paul is a minster of the new covenant but was not under it?!

Give the scripture for that one.

Made up... not in the Bible.


Actually, it is YOU that is changing the covenant. The Bible says that the new covenant is between GOD and ISRAEL. It's too bad that you disagree with the Bible.

There is only one EVERLASTING covenant to all.

 

[Right Divider]

What?!

Paul is a minster of the new covenant but was not under it?!

Give the scripture for that one.

It's up to YOU to PROVE that Paul is under the new covenant.

You ALSO need to PROVE that Paul told gentiles that THEY were under the new covenant.

There is only one EVERLASTING covenant to all.

You need to PROVE that as well.