Seventh Day Adventists say Catholics changed...

[me_again]

2Cor.3
3Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.
4And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward:
5Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;
6Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

Javl This does not say that the written letters kill, but that “the letter killeth”. You are confusing the actual writting of the law with this doctrine of the Judaizers. That being that we can only be saved by a ridgid adherance to the law and we know or should know that salvation comes to us in only one way. Through faith in Jesus. This certainly does not say that the law has been done away with. In fact v. 3 says the epistle of Christ is “written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.” This is an obvious reference to Jeremiah 31: 33But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. The letter that killeth is the idea that we can be saved by keeping the law written on stones without having it written on our hearts.

This is a never-ending no-win situation because each side is posting the same scriptures as PROOF of their theological standpoint.

Round and round she goes – and where she’ll stop, nobody knows!!! :bigyikes:

The Adventists are resolute in their beliefs and only the Holy Spirit can enlighten their understanding. We’re dealing with basic Christian principles that have been extraordinarily twisted and turned by the JWs and the SDAs that it’s beyond comprehension, to include:

• The egregious SDA belief that Daniel prophesied that the Lord Jesus Christ would secretly enter the holy of holies in the year 1844. When I say “secret,” I mean beyond the view of earthly mortals.
• The anti-traditional SDA belief that humans “cease to exist” when their mortal bodies die, until the resurrection. This is the antithesis of what Jesus taught in the story of Lazarus and the rich man where they both had consciousness when their mortal bodies had died. This is (and has been) a basic tenant of Christianity, ever since the Apostles walked the earth.
• The egregious SDA belief that humans and angels will “cease to exist” when they are thrown into the Lake of Fire at the end of the age, instead of burning forever.
• The silly SDA belief that anyone who willingly worships on Sunday has, by default, accepted the “mark of the beast.”
• The SDA belief that all true Christians must become vegetarians “just before” Christ returns. This one is very unique to Adventism. As you get deeper into Adventism, their vegetarian lifestyle becomes more apparent.
• The SDA belief that their founder, Ellen Gould White, is the “Spirit of Prophecy” and was inspired by the Holy Ghost to “reveal” the above beliefs.

These beliefs are downright kooky. :hypno:

I do not fault any cult member from being drawn into these demonic beliefs. For example, if a SDA enters the kingdom of heaven, he will suddenly realize that “soul sleep” is a farce – but until that time, they will firmly believe in it. Consequently, the only thing you can scripturally do is show them kindness and mercy as they drown in their heretical beliefs. :sad_bye:

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

This is a never-ending no-win situation because each side is posting the same scriptures as PROOF of their theological standpoint.

[SIGN]Round and round she goes – and where she’ll stop, nobody knows!!! :bigyikes:[/SIGN]The Adventists are resolute in their beliefs and only the Holy Spirit can enlighten their understanding. We’re dealing with basic Christian principles that have been extraordinarily twisted and turned by the JWs and the SDAs that it’s beyond comprehension, to include:

• The egregious SDA belief that Daniel prophesied that the Lord Jesus Christ would secretly enter the holy of holies in the year 1844. When I say “secret,” I mean beyond the view of earthly mortals.
• The anti-traditional SDA belief that humans “cease to exist” when their mortal bodies die, until the resurrection. This is the antithesis of what Jesus taught in the story of Lazarus and the rich man where they both had consciousness when their mortal bodies had died. This is (and has been) a basic tenant of Christianity, ever since the Apostles walked the earth.
• The egregious SDA belief that humans and angels will “cease to exist” when they are thrown into the Lake of Fire at the end of the age, instead of burning forever.
• The silly SDA belief that anyone who willingly worships on Sunday has, by default, accepted the “mark of the beast.”
• The SDA belief that all true Christians must become vegetarians “just before” Christ returns. This one is very unique to Adventism. As you get deeper into Adventism, their vegetarian lifestyle becomes more apparent.
• The SDA belief that their founder, Ellen Gould White, is the “Spirit of Prophecy” and was inspired by the Holy Ghost to “reveal” the above beliefs.

These beliefs are downright kooky. :hypno:

I do not fault any cult member from being drawn into these demonic beliefs. For example, if a SDA enters the kingdom of heaven, he will suddenly realize that “soul sleep” is a farce – but until that time, they will firmly believe in it. Consequently, the only thing you can scripturally do is show them kindness and mercy as they drown in their heretical beliefs. :sad_bye:

Only if you refuse to obey scripture and refuse to rely on the Church that has Sacred Tradition with Sacred Scripture to define the truth.

Richard I have asked to numerous times and have been ignored.

But will try once more.

What do you do with the Scripture that says stay close to the teachings that were given to you by WORD OF MOUTH. That is ST. How do you do that, and where does your Church get it.

 

[Javl]

2Cor.3
3Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.
4And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward:
5Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;
6Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

Javl This does not say that the written letters kill, but that “the letter killeth”. You are confusing the actual writting of the law with this doctrine of the Judaizers. That being that we can only be saved by a ridgid adherance to the law and we know or should know that salvation comes to us in only one way. Through faith in Jesus. This certainly does not say that the law has been done away with. In fact v. 3 says the epistle of Christ is “written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.” This is an obvious reference to Jeremiah 31: 33But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. The letter that killeth is the idea that we can be saved by keeping the law written on stones without having it written on our hearts.

Richard:

I thank you very much for your efforts in trying to explain the SDA position on Adventism, Sabbatarianism, the Law, and the covenant. I’m sorry to say that your, and the SDA, position in regards to these subjects is untenable. The early Church Fathers have all investigated, interpreted, and understood scripture diametrically opposite to what you and and the SDA believe. Since the CF have all written and explained the subjects that have withstood scrutiny over the centuries and the SDA is a newcomer on the scene, it is difficult to the accept the SDA’s version. In all Christian charity, I say that you are in error and should thoroughly re-think your position, unless of course the CF have bam-boozled us these many years.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom haMeshiach
Sh'ma O Yisroel, adonai elienu, adonai echod.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Richard:

I thank you very much for your efforts in trying to explain the SDA position on Adventism, Sabbatarianism, the Law, and the covenant.

Well, let me explain something Javl. My explainations are probably the SDA position on these topics simply because they are the positions found in the bible. Except for a very few instances were I have found my commentary could explain the position better than I. The exegesis on these topics is mine alone gleaned entirely from scripture itself and is as far as I’m concerned the meaning intended by the writers.

I’m sorry to say that your, and the SDA, position in regards to these subjects is untenable.

The fact that you don’t agree with my positions certainly does not make them untenable. As you can see by the volumnes I have posted on these subjects and the durth of information that you have posted. I would say that quite the opposite is true. Lets take a look at just one topic as an example. You say

The covenant given in Jeremiah 31:31-34 is for the Jews alone. The new Law and covenant given by Jesus Christ:

The new law: Matthew 22:38-40

The new covenant: Luke 22:20

If you disagree with this then you disagree with the early Church fathers, for this is what they understood.

Now by you saying this I’m assuming that you are saying that this is the official CC teaching on the covenant talked about in Jeremiah 31:31Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

32Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:

33But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

34And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

EVEN THOUGH THIS CLEARLY STATES THAT IT IS TALKING ABOUT THE NEW COVENANT. To me this position is untenable. And I don’t care if this goes against what the ECF says or the CC says or the pope himself says. It goes against what the WORD OF GOD SAYS and therefore is untenable.

This explains that the new covenant is the writing of THE LAW on the mind and in the heart. Heb.8 explains through a direct quote of this scripture that this is talking about the new covenant in JESUS CHRIST. I suppose the misunderstanding occurs because this talks about the new covenant with the house of Israel. Jesus says in Jn.4:21Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
22Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.

We must become spiritual Jews. Not Jews through the circumcision of the flesh , but spiritual Jews through the circumcision of the heart.

Rom.2
24For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.

25For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.

26Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?

27And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?

28For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

29But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Again we see that we become spiritual Jews through a keeping of the LAW.

Rom.9
6Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

7Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

8That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

We become children of Israel by not by ridgidly keeping a set of laws as a means of salvation, but by having God’s LAW OF LOVE written on our minds and in our hearts by the Spirit of God.

1Jn.2
27But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
The anointing that John talks about here is the anointing (baptism) of the Holy Spirit. Notice the similarity to Jer.31:34And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

This anointing of the Spirit is what makes us children of the house of Israel.

The early Church Fathers have all investigated, interpreted, and understood scripture diametrically opposite to what you and and the SDA believe. Since the CF have all written and explained the subjects that have withstood scrutiny over the centuries and the SDA is a newcomer on the scene, it is difficult to the accept the SDA’s version…

Ya, like I have said. If it is against what the word of God says IT HAS TO GO.

 

[me_again]

Rich, I just want to clarify that I have nothing against you on a personal level. I think that you’re fine. I acknowledge that you believe in Ellen White with all your heart, along with her scriptural interpretations and her extra-biblical teachings on such issues as vegetarianism and other things. Please know that I’m attacking the SDA doctrines – and not you.

:tiphat:

 

[me_again]

Rich, if you were to study the teachings of the early church fathers, from start to finish, you will be delighted to see that they are grounded in sound doctrine. I urge you to pick a subject – any subject – and then study the original interpretation from the apostles onwards. Don’t just study the SDA interpretations that were created from 1844 onwards. Food for thought. You’ll never know unless you try.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Rich, I just want to clarify that I have nothing against you on a personal level. I think that you’re fine. I acknowledge that you believe in Ellen White with all your heart, along with her scriptural interpretations and her extra-biblical teachings on such issues as vegetarianism and other things. Please know that I’m attacking the SDA doctrines – and not you.

:tiphat:

me again, How do you know what I believe? Especially about Ellen White since I have not one time mentioned her or quoted her. I believe that Ellen White is exactly who she says she is “a lesser light that points to the greater light” I don’t find this at all threatening or subversive, but you apparently do. You say that you are not willing to read the scriptures that I provide and I can only assume that means my exegesis of them also. So you cannot know what I believe, and quite frankly I find your continual rantings quite tiresome to the point that I have stopped reading them. If you would like to carry on a dialogue on some point of scripture I am more than willing, but if you continue these senseless attacks on what SDA believe or Ellen White I’m afraid you will be talking to yourself.

 

[benidict]

me again, How do you know what I believe? Especially about Ellen White since I have not one time mentioned her or quoted her. I believe that Ellen White is exactly who she says she is “a lesser light that points to the greater light” I don’t find this at all threatening or subversive, but you apparently do. You say that you are not willing to read the scriptures that I provide and I can only assume that means my exegesis of them also. So you cannot know what I believe, and quite frankly I find your continual rantings quite tiresome to the point that I have stopped reading them. If you would like to carry on a dialogue on some point of scripture I am more than willing, but if you continue these senseless attacks on what SDA believe or Ellen White I’m afraid you will be talking to yourself.

ok everybody. take a deep breath. and i mean all of us. not just you richard. this thread has been an excercise in charity, and i think we have all been doing a pretty good job. even when it has gotten heated.Peace to all of us. richard. i know you love the Lord. i know you are seeking to serve him, with your whole heart, body and mind. i wish you well on your spiritual journey, and hope to see you in heaven one day. really i think all that needs to be said on all sides has been said, and i for one, am going to take an extended break. everyone has been doing real well, and i expect this to continue. its been a very good discussion. Peace

 

[me_again]

I believe that Ellen White is exactly who she says she is “a lesser light that points to the greater light”

Richard, I know that that’s what you believe. SDA theology calls Ellen White the “Spirit of Prophecy.” As the founder of Adventism, she invented Sabbatanarianism, encouraged vegetarianism, created the 1844 Sanctuary Doctrine that says that Jesus secretly entered the holy of holies, et al.

You say that you are not willing to read the scriptures that I provide and I can only assume that means my exegesis of them also.

Actually, it was someone else who said that. I know who said it, but if you think it’s me, I’ll simply leave it at that.

I have thoroughly studied Adventist doctrines and am quite familiar with them. I have not yet thoroughly studied Catholic doctrines and am taking it in baby steps by reading Catholicism for Dummies first – and will later read the Catholic Caticism.

From the beginning of my studies of Adventism, I never believed any of it because I knew that they were scripturally wrong in some areas, such as the soul sleep doctrine (my death experienced proved that doctrine to be an un-bilical twisting of the scriptures). **The fact of the matter is that anyone can get the bible to say anything that they want, BUT the Lord only had one original meaning for the scriptures. ** Please accept my apology for saying this, but the JWs, SDAs and many other Christian cults, sects and denominations have done exactly that.

I’m currently open to Catholicism because in each case where I’ve gone back to the roots of a subject or issue, I can see the progressive interpretative analysis of it, from the beginning up to now. Richard, I highly encourage you to do the same, if you want to be well rounded in all theologies, but the decision is exclusively yours.

When I was an atheist, I believed I was right, but I was dead wrong. With that in mind, I acknowledge that I could be wrong now about many different issues. The issues are much bigger than me. So I’ll research the issues back to what the church fathers wrote – and that is the start of the church, which was Catholicism in the beginning i.e. I’ll study the roots and traditions of Catholicism, since that’s the genesis of the original church and since it’s a repository of tradition, history and scriptural information.

As a background, I currently receive holy communion and I have gone to confession – so I’m trying to do the right thing to the best of my ability. The operative word here is “trying.”

Richard, I’m rough around the edges. No doubt about that. Sorry about that.

Oh well. :clapping:

 

[me_again]

richard. i know you love the Lord. i know you are seeking to serve him, with your whole heart, body and mind.

I agree with you Benedict that Richard loves the Lord with all his heart.

 

[Javl]

Richard:

I don’t know if you are a theologion, or not. I am not, but I read the scriptures daily and try to understand them. I take no one’s word for anything. I have to find out and learn by myself. I find your exegesis in almost everything at odds with all the Church Fathers. Since they were the ones to formulate true exegesis of the scriptures, I am inclined to accept their explanation and definition before anyone else’s.

From the beginning, the first day of the week ( Sunday ) was set aside and celebrated as “The Lord’s Day” in celebration of Jesus’ rising from the dead. This day, then, is the Christian Sabbath and is such under the authority of Jesus Christ ( God the Son ). Since Jesus also said that to “love your neighbor as yourself” is also a great commandment and embodies the decalog, we hold all these under this commandment. Peter, Paul, and I’m sure the rest of the Apostles, followed and taught this ( Acts, Corinthians ) since the early CF and Church historians ( Ignatius, Athenasius, Eusebius, etc. ) all also state this in their writings.

That Sunday, and not Saturday, is the Christian’s Sabbath is stated by Justin, and Tertulian, and is also formulated in the Didache.

Richard, I know, and thank our God and Saviour, that you are a true Christian and want to do what God requires. We all do, but I’m sure you err in some of your beliefs. I pray to the Holy Spirit to guide you to the real truth and understanding. Meanwhile, Shalom haMeschiach.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Javl]

I agree with you Benedict that Richard loves the Lord with all his heart.

I KNOW that he does and praise the Lord for it.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[me_again]

The bible says that you will know followers of Christ “by their love, one for another” and “by their fruits.” However, with varying denominational differences in beliefs, a lot of questions are raised. For example, with such divergent beliefs, how can followers of Christ cordially or religiously “get along” with each other, while maintaining differences of theological opinion? It’s almost like a Christian Tower of Babel.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Richard:
I don’t know if you are a theologion, or not. I am not, but I read the scriptures daily and try to understand them. I take no one’s word for anything. I have to find out and learn by myself. I find your exegesis in almost everything at odds with all the Church Fathers. Since they were the ones to formulate true exegesis of the scriptures, I am inclined to accept their explanation and definition before anyone else’s

You say first of all. " I read the scriptures daily and try to understand them. I take no one’s word for anything."

Then you say “Since they were the ones to formulate true exegesis of the scriptures, I am inclined to accept their explanation and definition before anyone else’s”

Isn’t this a blatant contradiction Javl. And how do you know “they were the ones to formulate true exegesis of the scriptures” What makes their exegesis any more valid than anyone elses

From the beginning, the first day of the week ( Sunday ) was set aside and celebrated as “The Lord’s Day” in celebration of Jesus’ rising from the dead.

From the beginning the seventh day was set aside as “The Lord’s Day”
Gen.2
3And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
Ex20
10But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God
Mark2
Mark 2:28
28Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

Jesus says the Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath. This makes the Sabbath the Lord’s day.

This day, then, is the Christian Sabbath and is such under the authority of Jesus Christ ( God the Son ). Since Jesus also said that to “love your neighbor as yourself” is also a great commandment and embodies the decalog, we hold all these under this commandment. Peter, Paul, and I’m sure the rest of the Apostles, followed and taught this ( Acts, Corinthians ) since the early CF and Church historians ( Ignatius, Athenasius, Eusebius, etc. ) all also state this in their writings.

Peter, Paul, and all the apostles were Sabbath keepers.

That Sunday, and not Saturday, is the Christian’s Sabbath is stated by Justin, and Tertulian, and is also formulated in the Didache.

1Jn.2
19They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

Richard, I know, and thank our God and Saviour, that you are a true Christian and want to do what God requires. We all do, but I’m sure you err in some of your beliefs.

How do you know this?

I pray to the Holy Spirit to guide you to the real truth and understanding. Meanwhile, Shalom haMeschiach.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

And I will pray and have prayed for you.

Ok, all this having been said I would like to get at least a comment as to whether or not you still hold that Jeramiah 31:31Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

32Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:

33But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

34And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

is a covenant exclusively with the Jews and is a means of salvation exclusive of Jesus? In spite of what it says in Heb.8 or Jn.14: 6Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

 

[Javl]

You say first of all. " I read the scriptures daily and try to understand them. I take no one’s word for anything."

Then you say “Since they were the ones to formulate true exegesis of the scriptures, I am inclined to accept their explanation and definition before anyone else’s”

Isn’t this a blatant contradiction Javl. And how do you know “they were the ones to formulate true exegesis of the scriptures” What makes their exegesis any more valid than anyone elses

There is no contradiction here. You are reading into my statement what I do not mean ( as you seem to do with scripture ). I examine everything and do not take anything for granted. As for the exegesis of the CF, I can ask the same of you. How do I know your exegesis is true and valid? I accept theirs since they all arrived at the same basic conclusion independently.

From the beginning the seventh day was set aside as “The Lord’s Day”
Gen.2
3And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
Ex20
10But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God
Mark2
Mark 2:28
28Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

Jesus says the Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath. This makes the Sabbath the Lord’s day.

Peter, Paul, and all the apostles were Sabbath keepers.

And we do not because we keep the Sabbath on a Sunday instead of Saturday? Keep in mind that we were given the authority to do so by Jesus.

1Jn.2
19They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

How do you know this?

And I will pray and have prayed for you.

Ok, all this having been said I would like to get at least a comment as to whether or not you still hold that Jeramiah 31:31Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

32Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:

33But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

34And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

is a covenant exclusively with the Jews and is a means of salvation exclusive of Jesus? In spite of what it says in Heb.8 or Jn.14: 6Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

The covenant that Jeremiah mentions is a new covenant made with and for the Jews alone since the old covenant was broken by the Jews. At the time Gentiles were all considered pagans and not as a part of God’s people and therefore could not be, and were not, included.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Javl]

deleted.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

As for the exegesis of the CF, I can ask the same of you. How do I know your exegesis is true and valid? I accept theirs since they all arrived at the same basic conclusion independently.

The covenant that Jeremiah mentions is a new covenant made with and for the Jews alone since the old covenant was broken by the Jews. At the time Gentiles were all considered pagans and not as a part of God’s people and therefore could not be, and were not, included.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

Javl, I have deleted everything in your answer except this. You pose one very valid question and make a very difinitive statement.

Let’s look at Heb. 8 once again After explaining about Jesus heavenly high priest duties it says
5Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.

6But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

Now you need to get this Javl. This says that now Jesus is the mediator of a better (new) covenant. Now we have to realise that the covenant here talked about is not the wording of the covenant (The Ten Commandments) but it is talking about WHO THE COVENANT IS WITH (The mediator) and this covenant mediated by Jesus is based on better promises. What are those promises? Well, let’s look at the old promises first.

Deu.5
27Go thou near, and hear all that the LORD our God shall say: and speak thou unto us all that the LORD our God shall speak unto thee; and we will hear it, and do it.

28And the LORD heard the voice of your words, when ye spake unto me; and the LORD said unto me, I have heard the voice of the words of this people, which they have spoken unto thee: they have well said all that they have spoken.

29O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!

Did the children of Israel do what they said they would do? Did they keep all that the lord had spoken to them? No, of coarse not. Before Moses got down from Sinai they were worshiping a golden calf. Now it’s Jesus turn.
Hebrews 10:7
Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
Did Jesus keep His promise? Absolutely.
So, now we find.

7For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

Again this is not talking about the wording of the covenant, but WHO THE COVENANT IS WITH. Because in the very next v. we see.

8For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

Finding fault with them, not the wording of the covenant (The Ten Commandments), but WHO THE COVENANT IS WITH. Ok, now we find a direct quote of Jeremiah 31

**9Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

10For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

11And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

12For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. **

Verse 10 is a quote of Jer.31:33
33But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Here is the crux of the matter. The difference between the old and the new covenant is not in that the wording of the covenant has been changed. The law of God is the same now as it always has been. What has changed is WHO THE COVENANT IS WITH. Whereas before the children of Israel took it upon themselves to do the will of God. Deu.5:27"we will hear it, and do it". This they could not do for they made no provision for the Spirit of God in their lives and without that we are destined to failure. But now through the power of the Holy Spirit made possible by Jesus we are able to keep the law because it is written on our minds and in our hearts. IOW when we accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior the law becomes a delight and we keep the law not because we are slaves to a ridgid adherance to the letter of the law but because we LOVE Jesus.
Jn.14
15If ye love me, keep my commandments.

13In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

So the old covenant (the mediatorship of the children of Israel) has passed away because it has been replaced by the high priest mediatorship of Jesus.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Javl, you said you read the bible. I would ask that you prayerfully read through well, the whole book of Heb. but take special note of ch.7,8,9,&10

Heb10
8Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;

9Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

10By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

12But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

13From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

14For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

Here we see tha Jesus Through His high priest ministry has taken away the offering of animals, which never did have the power to forgive sins, and replaced them with His perfect sacrifice. Why? “To do thy will, O God” This is a two pronged statement. First Jesus came to do the will of His Father in dying on the cross for our sins and completing God’s plan of salvation. Second He did the will of the Father in that He is the only human to have lead a sinless life and thereby became the mediator of the new covenant based on better promises. “Lo, I come to do thy will, O God”

Now Javl look at this
15Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,

The Holy Spirit bears witness to this sacrifice of Jesus that perfects forever them that are sanctified v.14 How does He do this? Again we see a direct quote of Jeremiah 31
33But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

16This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
17And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
18Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.
19Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,

The new covenant talked about in Jeremiah and repeated twice in Hebrews is talking of the new covenant in Jesus Christ. How do I kow this. Well I kow it because it says so in the WORD OF GOD. So, if you, the ECF, the CC or the pope says any different, they are wrong. Not because I say so but because THE WORD OF GOD SAYS SO.

20By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;

Jesus has consecrated for us a new and living way, through the veil.

What veil? This is a reference to the veil that seperated the holy place from the most holy place in the sactuary. This veil was torn from top to bottom when Jesus died on the cross. What did it symbolise? It symbolised the only thing that seperates us from our God.
Isaiah 59
1Behold, the LORD’s hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear:

2But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.

The veil symbolises our sins that have seperated us from our God. But Jesus has provided a way through that veil. The **only **way through that veil.

21And having an high priest over the house of God;

22Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

23Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised

24And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:

25Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

We are advised to provoke one another to good works, to assemble together, and to exhort one another or lift up one another. Hopefully that is what I am doing for you Javl.

26For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

Now we find a warning here in Hebrews that after we recieve the knowledge of the truth and we turn our backs on that truth, there is no hope for us, because we turn our backs on Jesus. This is followed by more warnings but I’ll leave with this

31It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

 

[Javl]

Richard:

You have great rhetoric, and I admire you for it, but, sorry to say, I do not agree with your exegesis. I still believe that the second covenant refered to in Jeremiah was and is for the Jews alone. I still believe that the old law was fulfilled ( completed ) by Jesus and nailed to the cross with Him, and that we are no longer bound by the old law. I still believe that the two “new” commandments that Jesus mentions is the new law given to us ( the Gentiles ). I still believe that He made a new and everlasting covenant with us, which we all follow. And I believe and know that He gave us the authority to change the day on which to observe the Sabbath.

If you say that we are still under the old law, then why don’t you practice what you preach and observe the entire law, not just the decalogue alone? Remember, the law was given to the Jews so as they would recognize what was sin and and to determine right from wrong. Under the old law, sin was atoned for by blood sacrifices, which the Jews still believe in today for they want to rebuild the Temple. Jesus abolished that with His blood sacrifice once and for all time. I believe and accept the truths that Jesus has given us through His Apostles and down through the ages to the present day. Again, I am sorry, but you cannot convince me otherwise. Shalom haMeshiach

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Richard:

You have great rhetoric, and I admire you for it, but, sorry to say, I do not agree with your exegesis. I still believe that the second covenant refered to in Jeremiah was and is for the Jews alone.

When I hear you say this I hear you not disagreeing with my exegesis, but I hear you disagreeing with the bible. This passage from Heb.10 is absolutely clear.

Heb.10
10By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
13From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
14For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
15Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
16This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

Verse 16 is a quote of Jeremiah 31:33 and this passage in Heb.10 is telling us that Jeremiah 31:33 is talking about the new covenant in Jesus. And that covenant is manifest in us through the power of the Holy Spirit made possible through the sacrifice of the body of Christ. So when I see you talking this gibberish that this is talking about some special covenant with the Jews, when it is so clear what it is talking about. All I see is a denial of the truth. That truth being Jesus. So, I guess all that I can do, I have done and I will leave you with this. I would remind you of the definition of sin.
1Jn3
4Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
Whether you believe it or not sin always was and always will be a transgression of God’s law. The Ten Commandments.

Jeremiah 10
26For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

27But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

28He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

29Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

30For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.

31It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.