schriverja

Christians (at least Protestants) read a lot of Paul, who says that the laws of the OT aren't required to be kept, a view you have reiterated a lot. Most Christians I know don't think observing the Sabbath or otherwise following those other laws is something are supposed to be doing. Which is it: are Christians sinners who should be keeping the Law (at least the Decalogue) or are they completely free to disregard it? It would seem that both positions can be supported by the allegedly "unified" Bible.



edit to add: Also, if the Levitical laws are completely obsolete, why are so many Christians hung up on them*? Specifically issues like homosexuality?

*acknowledging that these same Christians are selectively hung up on certain passages in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and seem quite happy to skip over many of the others.

Sheshbazzar

My hasty error regarding Paul as the author of Hebrews is conceeded and corrected.
Does that mean you are free to discount the writers usage of ;
"....I will make a new covenant with THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL and with THE HOUSE OF JUDAH:" in Hebrews 8:8 even though by that time they had through Yahweh Elohim's workings been made into the one single nation of Israel? (and with Ten of the Twelve Tribes of Israel unidentifiable and 'lost')

The inspired writer of Hebrews thought it was a yet appropriate usage.
One established by a far greater Authority than himself. Take up your gripe with him or HIM.
As for me, IF Scripture says and it certainly does; "....a new covenant with THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL and with THE HOUSE OF JUDAH:"
that is the way it will stand, and that is the way it will be quoted, at least untill the day that it comes to pass.

Certainly it DOES NOT SAY; "Behold, the days come, saith Yahweh, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Christians."
And "all ISRAEL" includes "THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL and THE HOUSE OF JUDAH:" Which wording points to that day yet coming when Elohim Himself will again identify, separate and designate from among the each member of the Twelve Tribes.
HE will know those from THE HOUSE OF JUDAH, and those from THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL and they shall enter into His gates, according to the names of their Tribes (Matt 19:28 Acts 26:7, Rev 7:5-8, 21:12)

But it is NOT the holy, believing, faithful Patriarch's that are cut out of that good olive tree, it is the unfaithful and unbelieving Jews that were, and yet arecut out.
Yes it is the cut off branches of the house of Israel, that rejected YAH'shua the Messiah, whose descendants shall be again en-grafted. The blindness that overtook Israel is only for a season, TILL the fullness of the Gentiles come in, to be fellow heirs in the Promises.
that

In Romans 11:11-32 Paul is clearly speaking of his contemporary Jewish countrymen.

Paul speaking of his contemporary countrymen, and of his own portion amongst his contemporary Israelites.
And what will be grafted back in at that time and in that Day will be
the 'lost' "HOUSE OF ISRAEL and THE HOUSE OF JUDAH:"

First of all simon we are on two different tracks here.
It may surprise you to learn that the true"New Testament" is not any book, nor that collection of books, so commonly referred to as being "The New Testement".
The ONLY 'New Testement' of any effective value is the shed blood of YAH'shua the Messiah. (Matt 26:28, Mk 14:24, Heb 9:16-28)
Whoever is covered by this 'testament' is recieved by Him, and delivered by Him, even to such as cannot see, hear, or read a single word in a book.

We do not see eye to eye. Our perspectives, and our self-identity are not compatible. You are a disciple of that which you name,
I am not a Greek, neither do I speak Greek, nor call upon the names of Greek and Roman statues. And even if I were, I would not.
I AM an E'breth ta'Lameed YAH'shuah ha'Mesheka. v'abed Yahweh Elohi Israel.
As YAH-YAH'weh Elohi Israel is my witness.

(It matters not if you cannot understand nor recieve my words. The ONE who can, knows perfectly every word, thought, and intent.)

Davka

It depends on the covenant. Some of them are one-sided promises from YHWH with zero caveats. Others are if/then, if not/then propositions.

Davka

Contradiction : Progressive Revelation :: Torture : Enhanced Interrogation

Sheshbazzar

We are getting a little closer simon.
But allow me to bring to your attention a few more Scriptures regarding THE LAW. This time not about its permanence, but about its unity.
THE LAW exists as a unit. The so called 'Decalogue' (which one of them do you have in mind ? ) is inextricable from the rest of THE LAW of YAHWEH.
With respect to the Jews, -any- LAW within The TORAH that they are breaking, they are guilty of, and thus even to this day are yet in sin.
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 Messiah, thus their sin remains upon them. Because without the shedding of innocent blood there is no remission of sins.

Do Read Deut 27:15-26 simon, which of these LAWS of Yahweh have passed away?
Think you that The Holy One of Israel will find pleasure in them who now violate these LAWS of His with impunity?
These were also engraved every word into stone for a lasting memorial and warning.





.

Davka

No it does not.

The word "replacing" is not in that passage, nor is it implied. Instead, what is implied is a strengthening of the LAW.

And that, my friend, is a contradiction of what the OT says.

In Genesis 9, YHWH makes an 'everlasting covenant' with mankind: he will never again flood the entire Earth. He magically changes the laws of physics so that light will refract and form rainbows, as a sign of his covenant.

In Genesis 17, YHWH makes a NEW 'everlasting covenant': the covenant of circumcision. Amazingly, rainbows continue to appear. The old 'everlasting covenant' is still in effect. Which is kind of what one would expect from an 'everlasting covenant.'

A few verses later, YHWH promises yet another NEW COVENANT with Isaac, one which is also "everlasting." And once again, the previous EVERLASTING covenants are not affected.

In Numbers 18:19, yet another NEW COVENANT is made. Again, it is everlasting. Again, previous everlasting covenants are unaffected.

In Isaiah 55:3, yet another NEW COVENANT is promised. Again, it is everlasting. Again, previous everlasting covenants are unaffected.

In Ezekiel 16:60, yet another NEW COVENANT is promised. Again, it is everlasting. Again, previous everlasting covenants are unaffected. In this case, YHWH even promises to continue to remember the previous covenants.

In Ezekiel 37:26, yet another NEW COVENANT is promised. Again, it is everlasting. Again, previous everlasting covenants are unaffected.

Are you starting to see a pattern here?

Finally, in Jeremiah 31:31-33, YHWH is quoted thusly:

"The days are coming," declares YHWH, "when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah.
It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them," declares the LORD.
"This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my law (lit. My Torah) in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people."

Yet again, another NEW COVENANT is promised. Again, it is everlasting. Again, previous everlasting covenants are unaffected.

In fact, the previous everlasting covenant, the TORAH of YHWH, is to be unimaginably strengthened by this promised new covenant. YHWH will put His TORAH in their minds and write it on their hearts.

This passage says nothing about "replacing" one covenant with another. It makes no allusions to the ending of an everlasting covenant. While the Hebrews may have broken the everlasting TORAH of YHWH, there is no indication here or anywhere else in the OT that YHWH will break his everlasting TORAH.

Once again, you are adding to the Bible that which simply is not there.

simon kole

Mr Kole is not preaching. He is addressing internal contradictions in the Biblical texts within the parameters of his purview, which are quite adequate to address such contradictions as presented in Davka's "exhaustive" list, accessed in his post here.

In regard to this discussion, Mr Kole has explained several times now that the covenant which God said he would replace in Jer 31:32 was not stated at its inauguration to be eternal or everlasting. Show the text where it is.

The problem this thread is addressing is textual contradiction examined in terms of the whole Bible; i.e., it all has bearing.
In terms of the whole Bible, Mr Kole is to understood the OT in the light of the NT.

In terms of the whole Bible, that means Mr Kole is to understood it in the light of Jesus' reforms and refoundings.
In the light of the whole NT, Mr Kole is to understand that, when the purpose for which the Levitical priesthood and the laws based on it were given is accomplished, they are set aside.

In terms of the whole Bible, Mr Kole is to understand that the NT presents a transition, not a contradiction. Mr Kole is to understand that it is only in terms extrinsic to the whole Bible, and imposed upon it from outside itself, that a contradiction is construed.

Therefore, Mr Kole's purview is to examine the texts, in their own internal terms, for textual contradictions with itself.
That necessarily requires that Mr Kole understand it in its own internal terms, and not in terms from outside itself which are imposed upon it.

One of those internal terms which Mr Kole is to understand is that the NT presents a transition from the old order (old wine skin) to the new order (new wine skin).

Those are the internal terms of the Bible, which are the basis for examination of its texts for internal contradiction, in its own terms, and are the parameters of Mr Kole's purview.

If the principle is not accepted, that the whole Bible is to be used, in its own terms, for examination of its texts regarding internal contradictions (such as those presented in Davka's list), then Mr Kole will have to decline addressing what lies outside his purview.

Perspicuo

This is a Christian pretext, and addresses the fact of why the Law has been dumped for an amendment.

Does the OT contain an article for amendments? Even if it did, which I am unaware of, still it would be a logical inconsistency to have a loophole for amendment or even radical substitution, alongside "my law is eternal".

So it is clear to you too that the Law is not eternal, you just give a pretext, but then again, it is not eternal, it has been abrogated (discontinuated with authority). Even if God has the authority to do so (and the main thread of the whole Bible is he can do anything he wants), what he said was not true. God is a liar. Another inconsistency, this time with a attribute of God.


"Read my lips: my law is eternal"

simon kole

The NT sets aside the Levitical priesthood and the laws which were based on it.
It does not set aside the Decalogue given to Moses on Sinai, therefore Christians are to obey the Decalogue.

But in the light of the NT, obeying the command to "keep holy the Sabbath of rest" is obeyed in keeping holy the Sunday of rest, or any other day which they set aside as their holy day of rest for the week.

Since Christian churches convene on Sunday, it is convenient to set aside Sunday as that holy day of rest.

The practice of sexual sin is a moral matter, while the Levitical laws were a ceremonial matter. The practice of homosexuality is considered immoral in the NT.

Without knowing these Christians, I would surmise they do not have a good understanding of the relation of the Levitical laws to the NT. Or that they go to Leviticus as the basis for the NT proscription regarding the practice of homosexuality.

Deus Ex

Mr. Kole is tendentiously interpreting biblical passages based on the hermeneutics of his local sect of Protestants. Virtually no one here looks at the bible as a univocal, canonical monolith. I'm not real sure who Simon's intended audience is?