The Trans-Covenant Church

[Charles YTK]

New Testament trans-covenant Church

Over the years I have been so disappointed with the disparity between Christianity and the faith of those people in the New Testament. There clearly is very little similarity between these two groups. But really it all comes down to a critical 100 year chunk of time or even less, between the expulsion of the Jews and the final end to Temple service in 135 CE and perhaps year 200 when we see the writings of the Church fathers establishing a completely new and different religion.

I have spoken on this at length in the past, but I only wanted to bring out this one thought and see if anyone else has some thoughts on it. The Church of the New Testament is a trans-covenantal church. In other words there were two covenants still functioning as God allowed some closure to the Sinai Covenant and replaced it with the New Covenant which had begun on Shavuot after the resurrection. So the Church of the New testament has both covenants in operation, and the Jewish believers like the Apostles are fully involved in the temple worship as well as having faith in Yeshua. James the brother of Yeshua is known to have been daily in the temple paying in the holy place. I you wanted to speak to James, you had to go to the temple. The Jewish believers were still doing things associated with Temple and synagogue. For example we see that the believers are meeting in the temple daily at the time of the daily oblations, to pray and worship. (Acts 2) Paul takes a Nazarite vow, and generally speaking the Church is still a sect of Judaism, with the festivals of God and sacrifices. The temple was destroyed in 70 CE but the priests continued to officiate the service on the fallen ruins until 135 CE. It was after that time and after the close of the scriptures that Christianity formed and did so without attention to it’s Hebraic roots and the traditions upon which it was founded by the Apostles.

The Church has lost everything because they gave away the truth of who they are, members of the New Covenant grafted into Israel of the Kingdom, first-fruits of the final harvest that is coming at the end of the Eschaton. They were talked out of it by Covenant theologists and dispensationalists and Church fathers who wanted to build the Kingdom of God by military might and hold it by Mystery religion and cloaked rituals of Magic.

We don’t have a real good look at the post temple church that was to survive outside of th elands of Israel and yet that was where it’s mission field was located. The Faith was going to the nations. So what did Templess Messianic faith originally look like. Our only records are scant, with some recorded comments about the Nazarenes who seem to be the own stream people from Jerusalem.

Some of the Non-canonical books give us a look at this period of time and what we see is a real mixture of doctrines such as asceticism and Gnosticism. The Christian religion also develops out of this time of Chaos. It is no wonder that it’s doctrines are so foreign to the scriptures. And today we can’t really return to a New Testament church because it was this trans-covenantal church. What we need to figure out is how we are to live in the New covenant. If there is any interest in this subject, I would like to really dig together through the veils of time and the fragments of scripture and see if we can bring together that which defines life in the New Covenant.

Anyone interested???

[stone]

define

New Testament trans-covenant Church

[Tishri1]

I'm interested:wave:
we were just talking about the Gnostics Paul seems to be addressing in Colossians at Chavarah last night...Colossians 2:18-23 18 Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind, 19 and not holding fast to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God. 20 If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, 21 "Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!" 22 (which all refer to things destined to perish with the using)-- in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? 23 These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence. "self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind",.....these all seem to be Gnostic traits I've been told and that last line there is actually an insult to any true Gnostic who prizes himself to be above fleshly acts of eating and drinking and worldly possesions ect and into his "head knowlege" so to speak;)
..."and not holding fast to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God.".... Here's another rude comment about their loosing their "Head" (where all knowlege is stored;) ) which is Yeshua, and because of the vain pursuits they were bringing into the Church, and how they were killing themselves by walking around headless, they were destroying the body of Messiah by not caring for it properly...
"These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence." So if this is indeed Gnostic behavior then this book here has lots of instruction for the age you were talking about, the age after the Temple when they were on their own....we can use it to search out instruction for living :thumbsup:

[Charles YTK]

define

New Testament trans-covenant Church


Read the Opening post.

Two covenants were in operation for almost 40 years after the resurrection. And parts of the old Covenant are present in the Church of the first century. They would end when the Temple was destroyed. But that takes place after the New testament writings.

We know that the church was meeting in the temple daily and also having fellowship house to house.. We know they were no longer doing this after 70 AD.
Neither were they being sprinkled with the ashes of the red heifer, or entering nazarite vows or sacrificing their lambs for Pesach. The Torah that was speific to life in the lands of Israel and in the shadow of the temple was ended.

The Gospel out grew Israel and filled the nations. That is the church we belong to, not the one depicted in the New Testament. SO we have to extrapolate from their doctrine where the church ended up before the Romans Paganized it.

[Charles YTK]

I'm interested:wave:
we were just talking about the Gnostics Paul seems to be addressing in Colossians at Chavarah last night..."self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind",.....these all seem to be Gnostic traits I've been told and that last line there is actually an insult to any true Gnostic who prizes himself to be above fleshly acts of eating and drinking and worldly possesions ect and into his "head knowlege" so to speak;)
..."and not holding fast to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God.".... Here's another rude comment about their loosing their "Head" (where all knowlege is stored;) ) which is Yeshua, and because of the vain pursuits they were bringing into the Church, and how they were killing themselves by walking around headless, they were destroying the body of Messiah by not caring for it properly...
"These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence." So if this is indeed Gnostic behavior then this book here has lots of instruction for the age you were talking about, the age after the Temple when they were on their own....we can use it to search out instruction for living :thumbsup:

Something pops into my head here. To the Jewish way of thinking the heart was the seat of knowledge and understanding, the head was the seat of life. To know something for sure, you knew it and held it in your heart. To kill a man you cut his head off. You will se this repeated many times in the Tanakh.

Paul is addressing a couple groups here. He is speaking of vain philosophy, (Greek thought), Estheticism (vows of poverty and self affliction) and possibly the Escenes, in their refusing to marry and setting themselves apart for the lord. Gnosticism is basically "Seret Knowledge" which is like Kaballah, and other mystical practices. The Catholic church really was Gnostic shrouded in secret prayers and hidden language and rituals of an elite order of priests.

All these things were contesting for the heart of the Church. But it was mostly Hebraic and tied to Temple Torah. That was about to change.

The testimony of the Nazarenes is a good picture of the church I want to see.

Here are some historical clips like from Jerome and Epiphanius the 4th century church historians.


The first believers in Y'shua were a Jewish sect known as "Nazarenes" or in Hebrew "N'tzarim" (Acts 11:19; 24:5). The "church father" Jerome (4th Cent.) described these Nazarenes as those "...who accept Messiah in such a way that they do not cease to observe the old Law." (Jerome; On. Is. 8:14). The fourth century "church father" Epiphanius gives a more detailed description:

But these sectarians... did not call themselves Christians--but "Nazarenes," ... However they are simply complete Jews. They use not only the New Testament but the Old Testament as well, as the Jews do... They have no different ideas, but confess everything exactly as the Law proclaims it and in the Jewish fashion-- except for their belief in Messiah, if you please! For they acknowledge both the resurrection of the dead and the divine creation of all things, and declare that G-d is one, and that his son is Y'shua the Messiah. They are trained to a nicety in Hebrew. For among them the entire Law, the Prophets, and the... Writings... are read in Hebrew, as they surely are by the Jews. They are different from the Jews, and different from Christians, only in the following. They disagree with Jews because they have come to faith in Messiah; but since they are still fettered by the Law--circumcision, the Sabbath, and the rest-- they are not in accord with Christians.... they are nothing but Jews.... They have the Goodnews according to Matthew in its entirety in Hebrew. For it is clear that they still preserve this, in the Hebrew alphabet, as it was originally written.

(Epiphanius; Panarion 29)


Epiphanius, Heresy xxix.9.4 (Nazoraeans). They have the Gospel according to Matthew quite complete, in Hebrew: for this Gospel is certainly still preserved among them as it was first written in Hebrew letters. I do not know if they have even removed the genealogy from Abraham to Christ.

[Bon]

Charles,

Revelation chapter 2 & 3 give us a description of the seven churches which were apparently around in John's day.

Is it true that each of these churches are a depiction of the church ages throughout history?

I found this descritpion in an article.
Ephesus--the Church of the first-love, the apostolic Church
Smyrna--the persecuted Church--Diocletian to Constantine
Pergamos--the Church under imperial favor--under Constantine
Thyatira--the papal Church--the Dark Ages
Sardis--the Reformation Church--protestantism, sixteenth and seventeenth centuries
Philadelphia--the missionary Church--period ushered in by the Puritan movement
Laodicea--the rejected Church--Church of the final apostasy"


Why exactly is the history of CHRISTIANIY documented in the Bible if it is not God's intended path for believers?

Bon

[Charles YTK]

Hi Bon,

I think they do show us a progress of church changes similar to what you posted. If they are given as a prophetic profile, that would not mean that it was God's intended path, but the one that he saw tht was inevatable. Many bad things are predicted in prophecy, such as the war against Jerusalem and Messiah, however that does not mean it is God desire for us to go that way. It is just predictable from his place in eternity, the obvious result of our human nature.

We read in Isaiah that Messaih would be rejected by his people and thought to be cursed by God. In other places we see this same theme of Israels rejection of Messiah and later their recognizing him for who he is. Was it God's desire or Plan that Israel would reject him? Paul struggles with this question and tries to reconsile it by saying that God caused this to happen for the sake of taking the Gospel to the Gentiles. I ask, could the Gospel not have gone to the Gentiles if Israel had not rejected Messiah? I don't see why not. But it was clear perhaps to God that changing from the established order under the Old Covenant to the New Covenant would be nearly impossible for Jews raised in Torah. Part of faithfulness to Torah is reluctance to accept any change to it. As the Rabbis said, even if God spoke from heaven it would bear no weight because the Torah was given already and is on earth not in heaven.

It is difficult to understand these things, for me anyway. I have to simply accept that God is taking care of business.

And just to be balanced, we may be wrong about the 7 churches being prophetic church types for the progression of time.

[mpossoff]

As the Rabbis said, even if God spoke from heaven it would bear no weight because the Torah was given already and is on earth not in heaven.

Paul even said that. What is meant by that is not all voices from heaven are from G-d. Bat-kol might not be the correct Hebrew.

The main point is: for the LORD your God is testing you to know whether you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul

Could we hear voices today? Sure we can. But is the voice we are hearing leading us away from G-ds Commandments?

An example might be the 'Christianity' of today. Is christianity leading you away from His commandments?

Marc

[mpossoff]

Some of the Non-canonical books give us a look at this period of time and what we see is a real mixture of doctrines such as asceticism and Gnosticism. The Christian religion also develops out of this time of Chaos. It is no wonder that it’s doctrines are so foreign to the scriptures. And today we can’t really return to a New Testament church because it was this trans-covenantal church. What we need to figure out is how we are to live in the New covenant. If there is any interest in this subject, I would like to really dig together through the veils of time and the fragments of scripture and see if we can bring together that which defines life in the New Covenant.

From my studies this is what I discovered(brief):

First it was 'in house battle' within Judaism. It wasn't the acceptance of Messiah, it was the inclusion of the Gentiles. It was man made ordinances pertaining to Gentiles. Hashem never said in the TaNaK that Gentiles were to be 'treated like second class citizens'. If Gentiles come to Me and attach themselves to Israel they are not 'unclean' and are as if they are Israel. The Court of the Gentiles was a 'man made creation'. Persecution of 'The Way' IMHO not necessarily because of Messiah but because of the inclusion of Gentiles.

So what I discovered the battles were not really about Messiah it was more about Gentiles being grafted into Israel. Alot said Gentiles had to 'convert(ritually)'. Nowhere in scripture does Hashem say a 'sojourner' has to fo through a ritual conversion. It's as easy as attaching yourself to the G-d of Israel. That doesn't mean you can live and do whatever you want. “ Entreat me not to leave you, or to turn back from following after you; gor wherever you go, I will go; snd wherever you lodge, I will lodge; your people shall be my people, snd your G-d, my G-d. Where you die, I will die, snd there will I be buried. HaShem do so to me, and more also, if anything but death parts you and me.”

Eventually there were more Gentiles than Jews.

Then eventually Gentiles didn't want to 'do things that Jews did'. You have to realize that Gentiles came from pagan/heathen backgrounds and when they 'broke off' if you will they took alot of pagan things with them.

I believe the Nicene Council was the real start of the 'religion' of Christianity', although it started well before.

Since Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles most of his Epistles were directed about this. The Gentiles thought they were better than the unbelieving Jews and believed Hasham put them aside and believed that they are now G-ds people, etc. Also there was alot of 'funny stuff' happening in some of the assemblies.

IMHO it's not so much about the Temple being there or not being there.

Now PLEASE! don't take me wrong! I'm not denegrating Gentiles. Both parties were at fault. Persecutions from the unbelieving Jews because of Gentiles and Gentiles not wanting to be 'Jews'.

So IMHO I believe we need to go back in time to see how this 'religion' was really done. We know how it was done when there was a Temple. Cornelius who wasn't allowed in the Temple was now allowed in the Temple because of Messiah as an example. We see in Acts with the existence of the Temple that the believing Jews still did what they always did and didn't start a new 'religion' and never considered themselves different so to speak.

I asked my Rabbi about Torah observance and this is what he sent me:

YHWH told me I do not keep it right when I asked him. I said, "What should I change"? He said--Nothing. I didn't understand so He responded, "I love how you love it." Then I understood that it is more important to love His commandments than to keep them exactly right. We should draw near Him with our hearts rather than with our lips or with our intellect. That is what He loves.

Marc

[Charles YTK]

Hi Mspossoff,

I agree with your posts. Yes I understand it the same. The Jews from 165 BCE had instituted laws to exclude Gentiles from Temple, synagogue and in general Jewish community, unless they became proselytes, or at least God-fearers like Cornnelius. And all of this is contrary to Tanakh and Torah in particular.
However I think Jewish life was very attractive to most Gentiles. It might be compared to an elite country club of that time. There would be many benefits socially and economically. Many wanted to do all those Jewish things and be a part of the Torah community. Yet we see that even a proselyte was often treated as a second class citizen by some. After full conversion and circumcision he might still carry the stigma of Gentile or convert and less than true Jew. He was still not allowed to serve in most capacities or to own land ect.

Paul's doctrine, (Which is correct to Torah) turned that up-side-down and caused a commotion. When believers in Messiah were found to be doing Jewish customs the Jews were outraged. I think this is in part what lies behind Col 2:16, telling them not to be concerned for being criticized for doing those things, not for neglecting to doing them. (Try reading it that way and se how it fits.) The idea that the Jews would scold the Gentiles for not doing those things, does not fit the rest of the scriptures. Scolding them for doing them does, because Jewish Torah Community did not welcome Gentile participation or inclusion.

Now having said that, we have to realize too that the farther you get from Jerusalem the the more things change. Jews become a smaller minority and also become more assimilated and open to Gentiles. So what is true in one place may not be correct as a blanket statement for all. There is some variance. This distancing I think is why the major changes took place in Rome. It was also under the microscope of Roman authority and political manuvering and compromise was the path they chose to avoid the persecutions. Would you change the sabbath to sunday or personally feed the lions? Can a dead man offer praises to God?

I like what your Rabbi said. I feel that way. I love the word of the Lord. I love his law. And I look forward to a time when all men will come to the mountain of the Lord and there he will teach us his marvelous ways, and the law will go forth from tzion and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. We all long for that day.

[Charles YTK]

Paul even said that. What is meant by that is not all voices from heaven are from G-d. Bat-kol might not be the correct Hebrew.

The main point is: for the LORD your God is testing you to know whether you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul

Could we hear voices today? Sure we can. But is the voice we are hearing leading us away from G-ds Commandments?

An example might be the 'Christianity' of today. Is christianity leading you away from His commandments?

Marc
However they also said:

"A man who breaks a Torah command is worthy of scourging, but a man who breaks the law of the Rabbi is worthy of death."

The Rabbinate did not make all those sweeping changes of the Oral Torah without feeling secure in the authority to do so. Torah says the sojouner is the same as the native born and is to bring his sacrifice before the Lord. The Rabbis said Gentiles were not human, dogs, animals and not allowed anywhere near the Jews. To eat with one as Peter did would bring down the wrath even of Messianic Jews of that time.

[mpossoff]

However I think Jewish life was very attractive to most Gentiles.

Yes and Hashem said that peoples and nations would be attracted to Israel. Israel is a light to peoples and nations.

Deut 6:8 6 Therefore be careful to observe them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples who will hear all these statutes, and say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.’
7 “For what great nation is there that has God so near to it, as the LORD our God is to us, for whatever reason we may call upon Him? 8 And what great nation is there that has such statutes and righteous judgments as are in all this law which I set before you this day?

Marc

[mpossoff]

Torah says the sojouner is the same as the native born and is to bring his sacrifice before the Lord.

Yes in the Torah native born and sojouners were the same.

What I've been told, and I want to verify it, is Caleb wasn't a physical/native 'Israelite'. From what I'm told Caleb's geneology is of Gentile decent.

Now if that's true Caleb was certainly as if he was an Israelite, from Judah. A multitude left Egypt. Granted probably most were physical/native 'Israelites' but alot were sojourners. By any means sojourners were NOT to be treated different.

What's amazing is that it was NEVER the case.

That it was man made ordinances ia qhy Peter acted accordingly. He had to be shaken out of a 'dream' for him to realize that. (That 'dream' wasn't about food). It was about when Gentiles come to ME they are not unclean.

Gentiles were given 'basic' eating 'laws' per say. This meant that a Jew could eat at a Gentiles home and know that the food was 'kosher'. BUT as Gentiles learned more because Torah is preached every Sabbath they would learn to do more. The point is Jews aren't to 'shove' Torah down Gentiles throat. They will learn. I'll take an 'educated' guess and say although Cornelius was a Gentile he kept kosher and it would have been 'safe' to eat at his home. Why? Because Cornelius attached himself to the G-d of Israel, just unfortunate that he was only allowed in the Court of the Gentiles.

That was the main battle within the 'family'.

Alot of people think the main battle was about accepted Messiah but it wasn't. Atleast I used to think that way. And if you think about it with centuries of this being pounded into Jews heads(Gentiles are human, dogs, animals and not allowed anywhere near the Jews) it's apparent why even Jews today have this way of thinking. And yes I'm a physical Jew.

Marc

[Charles YTK]

There are two different centurions mentioned in the scriptures, Cornnelius and the one whose servant was sick and he sent to Yeshua for help. Both of these were "God fearers" and members of their local synagogue and probably lived the same as any Jews except they would not have accepted circumcision because of conflict with their Roman military positions. Rome allowed or legalized Judaism and gave it freedom to operate but for a Roman officer to become a Jew would have been very difficult I suspect. Short of that, both these men and their familes were living Torah observant lives as the scriptures clearly demonstrate if one understands the Hebraic context. So I agree totally that they were both observing a Kosher diet.

It seems something often missed that when the Lord first poured out the Spirit on the Gentiles it was Cornnelius a God fearer and Kosher man who was the one to receive this blessing. I have pointed this out to many christians but they seem blind to it.

[Charles YTK]

Concerning Caleb,

He is from Judah.

NU 13: [6] Of the tribe of Judah, Caleb the son of Jephunneh.

NU 14: [38] But Joshua the son of Nun, and Caleb the son of Jephunneh, which were of the men that went to search the land, lived still.

Jos 14: JOS 14:6 Then the children of Judah came unto Joshua in Gilgal: and Caleb the son of Jephunneh the Kenezite said unto him, Thou knowest the thing that the LORD said unto Moses the man of God concerning me and thee in Kadesh-barnea.

SO here he is referred to as son of Jephunneh the Kenezite.

I had this reference for Kenezite:

In Ge 15:19 the Kenizzites are listed as one of the pagan nations whose land God was giving to Israel. When Caleb is called a Kenizzite, it may mean no more than that one of Caleb's ancestors was named Kenaz (cf. 15:17; 1Ch 4:13, 15). This title "man of God" is ascribed to Moses also in Dt 33:1; Ezr 3:2, and in the title of Ps 90. For what God said to Moses about Caleb and Joshua, see Nu 14:30.
7-9 The spy mission Caleb participated in is recorded in Nu 13. Caleb's report was characterized by bold confidence in God (Nu 13:30; 14:6-9). The statement that Caleb "followed the LORD my God wholeheartedly" is found three times in this brief passage (vv. 9, 14). It describes him as one who really lived out the theme of this book and is the reason he was still alive and would inherit part of the land (cf. Dt 1:36).

[Tishri1]

I asked my Rabbi about Torah observance and this is what he sent me:

YHWH told me I do not keep it right when I asked him. I said, "What should I change"? He said--Nothing. I didn't understand so He responded, "I love how you love it." Then I understood that it is more important to love His commandments than to keep them exactly right. We should draw near Him with our hearts rather than with our lips or with our intellect. That is what He loves.

Marc


I like your Rabbi:thumbsup:

[Tishri1]

Paul's doctrine, (Which is correct to Torah) turned that up-side-down and caused a commotion. When believers in Messiah were found to be doing Jewish customs the Jews were outraged. I think this is in part what lies behind Col 2:16, telling them not to be concerned for being criticized for doing those things, not for neglecting to doing them. (Try reading it that way and se how it fits.) The idea that the Jews would scold the Gentiles for not doing those things, does not fit the rest of the scriptures. Scolding them for doing them does, because Jewish Torah Community did not welcome Gentile participation or inclusion.

yep thats how I see it as well....and thanks for remembering me in this thread too Charles... I dont have much time to be involved in threads with to much depth because of all I do back stage;), but this is a subject that I could sink my teeth in:thumbsup: ....thanks and thanks to you too Marc:hug:

[Charles YTK]

So, this thread sort of connects with the other thread on "What would you do if the taberncale was set up again and made operational." Becuase the church in the scriptures is transcovenant, having at least for the Jewish members, continuation of the Temple service and the Sinai covenant until the temple was ultimately destroyed.

Within just a few years of that time, we see evidence that the church had produced the sacrament of the Eucharist to take place of the sacrificial service and to see it fulfilled in Yeshua's crucifixion. The Passover is not able to be observed in a biblical way, and Eucharist takes it's place. I am one who does not agree with the practice of Eucharist and see it as a Pagan adaptation, however it quickly became the standard in most of Christendom.

If the Tabernacle was set up would Christianity make the jump back to where they started? I suspect not as they have now place what they call "Sacred tradition" higher than anything given by God. But what would you do personally? And how much of the Old covenant which according to the Apostles is cancelled in favor of the New Covenant, would you really want to have as part of your doctrine?

[Wags]

And how much of the Old covenant which according to the Apostles is cancelled in favor of the New Covenant, would you really want to have as part of your doctrine?


I don't believe that the Apostles taught that the old was cancelled. Yeshua certainly didn't and HE is the ultimate authority.

Could it be we are still in a "trans-covenant" state?

[Charles YTK]

Wags,

You always come back to the same circular arguments. Look,, Yeshua taught men to keep the law differently than it had been taught by Moshe, said that their "house (Temple) was left to them desolate" Said that his blood was sealing the New Covenant and that they were to enter it, sends the Apostles out to proclaim himself as Messiah and to announce the Kingdom which come only in the New Covenant. And he tells them that the temple is about to be removed completely and that is the heart of the Old Covenant.

The Apostle never go out telling people to tighten up their attachment to the Old covenant or to perfect their Torah observance. They tell everyone that Yeshua is the Messiah, that they must receive him and the baptism of the spirit and enter the Kingdom of God. These are all New Covenant proclamations. These are not Old Covenant teachings and signs. They are strictly New Covenant. The Lord and the Apostls never preach a return to Moshe. They preach entering the Kingdom and being born again.

I have challenged you before to demonstrate where the Apostles are peaching a return to Moshe and perfect Torah observance and you never produce it, but at the same time you never fail to make this same claim as you have here.

What Yeshua said would never pass away is the Law and the Prophets.He never said the old covenant would never pass away. And he is obviously speaking of the law of the ten commands here because 1. that is the only law he teaches,2. That was the only law given as the covenant of Sinai 3. the ten are carried into the New Covenant and are unchanged today.

The Old Covenant was removed, taken out of the way, so that the New Covenant he made through his sacrifice would be established. The temple WAS destroyed. And the law for it eternally changed, the law of sacrifices changed, the law for priests changed.

I repost all this for the sake of those 14-18 visitors that are usually around here in this forum.

[mpossoff]

Charles I think I know where you are coming from.

“You have heard that it was said to those of old"

"But I say to you"

Yeshua doesn't say “You have heard that it was written to those of old"

As an example; Alot thought He broke the Sabbath. Why? Was it because “You have heard that it was said to those of old"?

Interesting. Because since He is the 'creator' of Torah, He is also the Authority, for He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.

Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like this debate has to with was the Torah replaced with another Torah or is it the same Torah?

The Torah is still the same, Yeshua established, illustrated, and explained its highest meaning, both by His life and 'doctrine'. Hashem in the flesh, He created it.

Now does the above mean that is the New Covenant? Maybe part of it but it's not the New Covenant.

Marc

[Charles YTK]

Could it be we are still in a "trans-covenant" state?

Here is the Covenant of Sinai. It is a conditional covenant, requires Israel as a nation to keep the terms of the covenant and IF THEY DO, God promises to bless them in the land. That is the Sinai covenant, A Covenant of blessing and curses for Israel in the land that God is giving them.

DT 7:12 Wherefore it shall come to pass, if ye hearken to these judgments, and keep, and do them, that the LORD thy God shall keep unto thee the covenant and the mercy which he sware unto thy fathers: [13] And he will love thee, and bless thee, and multiply thee: he will also bless the fruit of thy womb, and the fruit of thy land, thy corn, and thy wine, and thine oil, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep, in the land which he sware unto thy fathers to give thee. [14] Thou shalt be blessed above all people: there shall not be male or female barren among you, or among your cattle. [15] And the LORD will take away from thee all sickness, and will put none of the evil diseases of Egypt, which thou knowest, upon thee; but will lay them upon all them that hate thee.


Now let's consider the historical record. Although Israel was an occupied nation under Rome and there were some unfair things like the Fiscus Judacaus tax, none the less the people were free to pursue their businesses and family life and Judaism was given exemption from Roman laws of worship so that it could be practiced pretty freely.

From the time the Jews rejected Messiah and the New Covenant was given, the temple was destroyed, the Levites scattered and finally the nation itself expelled from the lands of Israel. There was no way to keep the old covenant any longer. Have you not read in the law that the man who does not continue in all these things is to be cut off from his people? God allowed the temple to be removed as it was an obstacle keeping Israel from seeing Messiah. (This is what made the Messiah a stone of stumbling) As we continue, to this day, we see that Israel has suffered in every nation, under oppression, discrimination, pogroms and inquisitions and expulsions. They have had their lands seized, their bank accounts emptied, and in 1942,, 6.6 million innocent people killed. When in 1948 they finally returned to the land, in two weeks beore they even could form a military, all the Arabs in the world came against them in war, and from that day to this day they have been the subject of hatred by the Arab world and the target of endless terrorism.

Now having viewed these facts, does it really seem to you that God is honoring the Old Covenant which promises to keep them from attack by enemies, and to bless them in the land, to prosper them and make them the envy of every nation on earth?

It makes me think of Tevia when he learns that their homes are being taken away and they must leave Anatevka, who said "Lord, I know we are your chosen people. But once in a while couldn't you just choose someone else?"

Israel broke the covenant and Yeshua made a New Covenant. The old Covenant continued 38 years and 4 months from the Passover of Yeshua's death, same as the time in the wilderness from Passover to the command to turn and enter the land. The New Covenant was given on the very same day as the old covenant with similar signs like flames of fire, loud noises and every man hearing the Words of the Covenant in his on ears.

There is no chance at all that a transcovenant Church continues to this day. There is only the New Covenant.
Peter proclaims the Good news of the Covenant right there in Acts 2,

AC 2:[16] But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; [17] And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: [18] And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: . . . [22] Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: . . .[24] Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. . . . [32] This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. [33] Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. [34] For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, [35] Until I make thy foes thy footstool. [36] Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

AC 2:37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? [38] Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. [39] For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.


Never once does Peter call the people to reaffirm the old covenant, which is really the purpose of Shavuot, (Pentecost) but instead proclaims the Gospel of Messiah, the resurrection, the fulfillment of the promises to David to raise up a King from Judah, to establish a Kingdom for God, to give us new life by a rebirth in the spirit.

[Charles YTK]

Charles I think I know where you are coming from.

“You have heard that it was said to those of old"

"But I say to you"

Yeshua doesn't say “You have heard that it was written to those of old"

As an example; Alot thought He broke the Sabbath. Why? Was it because “You have heard that it was said to those of old"?

Interesting. Because since He is the 'creator' of Torah, He is also the Authority, for He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.

Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like this debate has to with was the Torah replaced with another Torah or is it the same Torah?

The Torah is still the same, Yeshua established, illustrated, and explained its highest meaning, both by His life and 'doctrine'. Hashem in the flesh, He created it.

Now does the above mean that is the New Covenant? Maybe part of it but it's not the New Covenant.

Marc




It is new covenant because it is given at such a level in the heart that only through a new life born of the holy spirit can a man keep the ten commands. Where in the past a man who murdered was guilty and to be executed. Now if a man was angry with his brother without cause he was guilty. He could not be executed for what was in his heart, but God would judge the heart. And so only by replacing the mans heart with one that is able to forgive and love could this new application of the law be kept. And that does not happen under the old covenant. It happens when we receive the spirit of God to live in us and change our very nature to be like that of Yeshua. This is New Covenant. Peter affirms this on Penetcost that the outpouring of the spirit was what Joel had prophesied and Also Isaiah, Jeremiah if we are to mention it and Ezekiel as well. It was all future under the old covenant and now in Yeshua it was happening. It was the New Covenant.

[visionary]

Charles,

Revelation chapter 2 & 3 give us a description of the seven churches which were apparently around in John's day.

Is it true that each of these churches are a depiction of the church ages throughout history?

I found this descritpion in an article.
Ephesus--the Church of the first-love, the apostolic Church
Smyrna--the persecuted Church--Diocletian to Constantine
Pergamos--the Church under imperial favor--under Constantine
Thyatira--the papal Church--the Dark Ages
Sardis--the Reformation Church--protestantism, sixteenth and seventeenth centuries
Philadelphia--the missionary Church--period ushered in by the Puritan movement
Laodicea--the rejected Church--Church of the final apostasy"


Why exactly is the history of CHRISTIANIY documented in the Bible if it is not God's intended path for believers?

BonThis is the dispensationism of christianity. It is the time of the gentiles and it is the rejected church, the church of final apostasy in these last days. Not because they have changed their position all that much, but because they have rejected the light that shines upon them.

Nazarene while being more obscure because of persecution, book burnings, and such have little evidence left of their existence. This does not change their continuation throughout the ages. Worth studying their faith.