dockeen

Proving once more that I am a master baiter and the Ph.D. I received all those years
ago was well and trully earned.

simon kole

Nice boot-strapping of covenants there.The NT is part of the Christian Bible, and is the parameter of my purview.The NT does not present the "everlasting covenants" as obsolete.
It presents only the Sinaitic covenant referred to in Jer 31:32 as obsolete. Not in the terms of the NT, which presents it as a transition, and which NT is part of the Bible of my purview.

You are importing the extrinsic notion "contradiction" to explain the differences between the OT and the NT, rather than employing the NT's own notion of "transition" in explaining them. My purview is based on considering the Bible in its own terms, and not in extrinsic terms imposed upon it.

The resurrection of Jesus is a good example. Some would interpret it in terms extrinsic to the NT, rather than in the NT's own terms. They would interpret Paul as believing in a "spiritual" resurrection of Jesus; i.e., a non-physical, bodyless resurrection, by imposing an extrinsic meaning of "spiritual" on the NT, rather than understanding the NT in its own meaning of "spiritual." Not surprisingly, that methodology yields contra-Biblical conclusions, and your conclusion regarding Heb 7:18 is an example of that methodology, with its consequent contra-Biblical conclusion.

In my example of Jesus' resurrection, "spiritual" in the NT is never used to mean non-physical, bodyless, non-material. It is always used to mean the realm of the Holy Spirit's activity within man's spirit. Using the extrinsic meaning "bodyless" is not understanding the NT in its own terms and, therefore, yields the contra-Biblical conclusion of a bodyless resurrection of Jesus.

This issue is more fully explained here.

simon kole

In your post #335, here, at the bottom, in the middle of your last reponse there, you wrote:

"Messiah was made manifest that his blood might atone for their trespasses. They no longer
offer the blood required by Moses, and yet spurn the blood of the Messiah, thus their sin remains on them.
Because without the shedding of innocent blood there is no remission of sins." This last sentence is Heb 9:22.

You don't remember writing that?
I hear echoes of it in what I've quoted from your post #335 above, where you quote Heb 9:22.

You don't remember writing that?
In the quote above from your post #335.

You don't remember writing that?
In your post #332 here, in your second response from the bottom, in its second paragraph, you wrote:

". . .the true "New Testament" is not any book, nor the collection of books, so commonly refered to as being
"The New Testament."

The ONLY 'New Testament' of any effective value is the shed blood of YAH'shua the Messiah. (Mt 26:28, Mk 14:24, Heb 9:16-18).

Whoever is covered by this 'testament' is received by Him and delivered by Him,
even such as cannot see, hear, or read a single word in a book." (bolded by simon)

You don't remember writing that, and referencing it in the NT?
Then your 'understanding' is wrong.
Then what are you saying in your two quotes above from your posts #332 and #335?

Sheshbazzar

A couple of points simon, Ones that you would soon become well and painfully aware of if you ever actually undertook to learn to read from the Hebrew biblical texts.

The first being that learning to read and write in the Biblical Hebrew alphabet is detail oriented with several of its letters appearing virtually identical to the untrained eye, so that the difference often must be sought out by examination of the smallest of details.
Pertinent to what I wrote, and which you misunderstand, is that matter of detail. I wrote ONE thing, you read it, and recite back with an altered variant, one which I did not write or 'say'. Naturally I ask you to show where I said (wrote) what you are saying that I wrote.
When I write "YAH'shua the Messiah" that IS what I wrote, NOT another name. You write, or recite back, or imply anything different, I will rightly deny it. hence the repeated "NO".

I have clearly explained to you before, that I regard that name which you commonly use as an unacceptable substitute, as being the name of a Greco-Roman statue (idol),
the name of which I do not speak, or even write. It being 'cherem', an accursed thing. A thing 'dedicated' to destruction, one religiously 'set-apart' to the usages of those who lack the discernment to 'put a difference between' the qodesh and the kol (Lev 10:10)

When you look at an image of 'X' on a cross' you see something to be looked up to, bright and desirable, good for healing, and for salvation from death.
But I see it a replay of the old 'Nehushtan' idolatry, with 'X' being your present 'Snake-on-a-Pole' idol.
If I desired such a 'saviour', I could pick one up at any second hand store/junk emporium. A buck or so for a plastic one, or maybe 10 or 15 for a genuine brass Snake-on-a-Stick.
'Pictures', 'images' and 'icons' of your 'saviour' abound and are instantly recognised by everyone.
I have no such thing, and have no desire for any such 'thing'.

The second point being, that although I might understand the doctrines, and the thought processes that led to those doctrines, and what those doctrines and claims imply, and am thus able to comment from that perspective, That by no means requires that I believe or accept the claims made by that perspective.
I am not a Christian, (nor a Jew), nor an Atheist, and my views on either the 'old' or the 'new' testaments' are not those of a Christian, a Jew, nor an Atheist; You have viewed my profile.

simon kole

1) NONE of which addresses my very specific questions, about what you specificly meant,

in the parts I quoted from your posts #332 and #335, here.

2) And to which I will add this from your post #306, here, at the first full paragraph under the verses you quote there, where you wrote: (bolding by simon)

"simon, the New Covenant is real, but it only becomes effective if one dies.
This is the reason for our 'baptism', being laid down into that watery grave, the old man dies, and is put to rest, and a new man comes to life and rises from that grave. (by simon: that's Rom 6:3-4)

The new man is no longer under the curses of the Law, (by simon: that's Rom 6:14) because his baptism is accounted as the death of the flesh, that he might henceforth live forever more in the spirit. (by simon: that's Rom 6:5-10)

Once accomplished, that soul henceforth being accounted as now among those who have died, cannot sin. For Yahweh will no longer impute any sin to those washed and justified by the water, and by the blood. (Ps 32:1-2, Rom 4:7-8)." (by simon: that's 1Jn 5:6)

Do you remember writing that, and referencing Rom 4:7-8 from the NT?

3) And then there is all that confusion in your post #332 regarding what I actually said in my post #316, here,
and which I addressed in my post #342, here.

4) Anti-theist would describe the following in your post, beginning at the third line in your last response there, where you wrote:

"In verse 1 Yahwek says that He will write on the tablets.
He must have developed a case of the back door trots, or maybe carpel tunnel syndrome, because by the time we get to verse 7, He's shoving the actual task of carving the wrting on the two stone tablets off to old Moses.
Maybe Yahweh's finger got sore, or He got blistered doing all that carving the first time around?
Or perhaps he just had to go to the loo really bad?"

So what is your post #348 about, [POST=6847979]here[/POST, where in your response there, you wrote: (bolding by simon)

"That name (Christ), and any variant of it, is an profane and accursed thing to all of my faith. We do not speak it, and are careful to avoid even writing it.

5) What did you specificly mean in what I've quoted above from your post #306,
as well as in what I've previously quoted from your posts #332 and #335, here?

Sheshbazzar

Our disagreement concerned whether Yahweh' eternal LAW had 'passed away' or ceased being in effect with the establishment of The 'New" Covenant as you have repeatedly claimed.
Thus I attempted to explain to you, by and with, the perspective of the Epistles. The concept of a NT believer dying on the day of their 'baptism'.
This is particularly applicable to any Jewish believer who was formerly subject THE LAW of Moses, being by that 'baptism' made dead to THE LAW.
THE LAW has dominion over the man as long as he lives. THE LAW does not any longer apply once a person is DEAD and buried.

That does not mean that THE ETERNAL LAW is 'done away with', or aborogated for anyone who has not likewise died, and been buried.

It is still in full effect against all that 'sin', both those 'under THE LAW', and 'those without THE LAW' (Rom 2:12-13 & 1 Cor 9:20-21) ALL alike die because of 'sin'.

And again, THE LAW is repeatedly spoken of as an inseparable unit.
The extent of that statement did not end at Calvary, but would extend to the Jew (that audience that these words were addressed to) in particular, right to this day.
(Gentiles, by the election, always were outside of, and excluded from The Mosaic Covenant, and were never required by THE LAW to 'observe' and 'do' "the least of these Commandments", and in fact, unless they circumcised themselves, and became 'Jews', they were -forbidden- to engage in the practices and rituals of THE LAW; Either one is a Jew, or one is not, There is NO middle ground.
Strict Judaisim does not, and never has encouraged conversions. It has never needed to, because both the Torah and the Prophets promise the deliverance of all righteous Gentiles ( as Gentiles) along with His people Israel.

I make these statements and observations from the perspective of a NT believer, which is not difficult for me, having myself walked in those sandals some 40 years before I took them off.

It is interesting that you so well recall the statements that I made.
Did you receive them, that is to say, do you accept them as being valid observations?

simon kole

1) That in no way at all answers my questions presented here, regarding your specific meaning
in your posts #332 and #335.

2) Nor does it adequately answer my questions at 2) and 4) here.

3) Nor does it explain your identifying yourself with faith, here, where you wrote:

"That name (Christ), and any variant of it, is an profane and accursed thing to all of my faith. We do not speak it, and are careful to avoid even writing it."

4) And no deflecting from the issue, as you've done above. The issue here is

a) your specific meaning in your posts #332 and #335, presented here,
b) my questions presented at 2) and 4), here, and
c) your identifying yourself with faith, here, as quoted in 3) above.

Sheshbazzar

3) I will answer. I am not alone. I am a member of The Faith, and of The Congregation. I am known by name to my 'brethern'.


I have answered your questions more than adequately. If you are lacking in reading comprehension, or logical reasoning skills, or simply cannot 'see' with your blinders on, and cannot 'hear' with your fingers stuffed in your ears,
.... Well, there is really nothing that I can do about that.
In that case, just consider whatever I may have written to have been for the benefit of others who do not suffer from your problems.

simon kole

I cannot take you seriously, sheshbazzar, regarding Biblical contradictons if you do not adequately address your own personal contradictions, presented here.

simon kole

The Congregation of Anti-theists?

Are you also careful to avoid writing the name Yahweh?

I cannot take you seriously, sheshbazzar, regarding Biblical contradictions if you do not adequatly address your own personal contradictions, presented here.