EVERLASTING OLD COVENANT (Jew V Christian)

[metis]

To the Jews "belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ",328 "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable."329

840 And when one considers the future, God's People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah.

Which is basically what I stated.

Like I said, they make wishy-washy statements about it and basically act like the Jews don't need Jesus, but haven't come out officially to change the doctrines, which would be heretical.

I basically admitted it's "wishy-washy", but by being as such it has allowed the Church to gradually do away with the old judgmentalism towards Jews and others, and it's not only in this area whereas the Church has done that.

 

[Brickjectivity]

No more insulting than quoting the Torah and Prophets and expecting an outsider to believe that they are the Word of God. Are we to accept Moses on reputation any more than Paul?

By rejecting Paul, you reject Jesus, who called him as his apostle.

Luke wrote the account of Saul's conversion in Acts. Are we now to dismiss Luke's Gospel because he don't like what he wrote about Paul being a chosen apostle?

That would be insulting to them but not as insulting as quoting Paul at them rather than using his argument.

Are we to accept Moses on reputation any more than Paul?

Moses also should only be accepted if you accept his message.

By rejecting Paul, you reject Jesus, who called him as his apostle.

All I'm asking that you use Paul's arguments rather then quoting his results. It is a discussion about ideas not about who is authoritative. Have you researched how Paul comes up with his results in the prophets and Torah? That would be a good thing and more accepting to Paul than just quoting his results. He himself used reasoning and didn't think it was unfair to require it of a teacher.

Luke wrote the account of Saul's conversion in Acts. Are we now to dismiss Luke's Gospel because he don't like what he wrote about Paul being a chosen apostle?

If you don't know how Paul gets his results then you probably shouldn't quote him.

 

[Redemptionsong]

That's right!


Yes, all of them relate to time.


G-d says: "I commandeth thou O Israel, doeth x, y, z."

@Redemptionsong says, "That's a good idea G-d, but I have a better idea."


You probably should have stopped your sentence here, so I'll help you out.

In an earlier post you admitted that there will be a better way than the old covenant. These are your words, 'Under the new Covenant, we would not need to study in order to access the very same Law, we would be able to look inward and know it.'

Jeremiah says, '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.' [Jeremiah 31:33]

So whilst acknowledging that a new covenant will come into existence in the future, you give no indication as to why God should put his law in your inwards parts, or write it in your heart.

If it cannot be achieved through study, how do you imagine it will occur?

 

[1213]

...
In conclusion confounding terms in the word maybe where the confusion begins that is statutes, the ordinances, the law, and the commandment which He wrote for you, you shall be careful to observe forever." – 2 Kings 17:37, and “He has commanded His covenant forever” – Psalm 111:9.

The problem is that people broke the covenant. that is the reason why new was done through Jesus. But God has not broken it, God is always loyal.

For finding fault with them, he said, "Behold, the days come," says the Lord, "That I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers, In the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; For they didn't continue in my covenant, And I disregarded them," says the Lord. "For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel. After those days," says the Lord; "I will put my laws into their mind, I will also write them on their heart. I will be to them a God, And they will be to me a people. They will not teach every man his fellow citizen, Every man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' For all will know me, From the least of them to the greatest of them. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness. I will remember their sins and lawless deeds no more."
Hebrews 8:8-12 (Jeremiah 31:31-34)

 

[Redemptionsong]

All I'm asking that you use Paul's arguments rather then quoting his results. It is a discussion about ideas not about who is authoritative. Have you researched how Paul comes up with his results in the prophets and Torah? That would be a good thing and more accepting to Paul than just quoting his results. He himself used reasoning and didn't think it was unfair to require it of a teacher.

I'll try to make it a little plainer.

We know that Paul was a pharisee, and well versed in the scriptures. He constantly draws on Old Testament scripture to convince his audience that the Messiah has made his first appearance. Paul is not dismissive of the law, but he wishes to demonstrate that the law prepares the ground for the coming of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit will not be given until sin has been dealt with, as Paul himself discovered [Acts 9:17].

You wanted to know the reasoning that Paul uses. Well, he knows that the Church is a 'mystery', hidden from view in the Old Testament, but there was still ample evidence to show, from scripture, that sin was the underlying problem faced by all men. In Hebrews, chapters 9 and 10, he contrasts the offerings under the law and the offering of Christ. The point being made is that temporal offerings cannot wash a man free of sin, whereas the blood of Christ can. This is not an entirely new teaching, but a recognition that Ephraim (Israel) had failed to please God in their efforts at obedience to the law. Ephraim's backsliding is referred to in Hosea. [See Hosea 9:4, 17)

If a people are not able to please God through their efforts at righteousness, then it is left up to God himself to solve the problem of sin. Jesus Christ, as the Son of God, is given the task of preaching the Kingdom of God and of dying for sin.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I'll try to make it a little plainer.

We know that Paul was a pharisee, and well versed in the scriptures. He constantly draws on Old Testament scripture to convince his audience that the Messiah has made his first appearance. Paul is not dismissive of the law, but he wishes to demonstrate that the law prepares the ground for the coming of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit will not be given until sin has been dealt with, as Paul himself discovered [Acts 9:17].

You wanted to know the reasoning that Paul uses. Well, he knows that the Church is a 'mystery', hidden from view in the Old Testament, but there was still ample evidence to show, from scripture, that sin was the underlying problem faced by all men. In Hebrews, chapters 9 and 10, he contrasts the offerings under the law and the offering of Christ. The point being made is that temporal offerings cannot wash a man free of sin, whereas the blood of Christ can. This is not an entirely new teaching, but a recognition that Ephraim (Israel) had failed to please God in their efforts at obedience to the law. Ephraim's backsliding is referred to in Hosea. [See Hosea 9:4, 17)

If a people are not able to please God through their efforts at righteousness, then it is left up to God himself to solve the problem of sin. Jesus Christ, as the Son of God, is given the task of preaching the Kingdom of God and of dying for sin.

Do you remember this: "We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth." ?

but there was still ample evidence to show, from scripture, that sin was the underlying problem faced by all men.

...and you don't seem to be able to make the same connection in scripture that you feel Paul has made, apparently only knowing how to say that Paul has said these things about scripture. That doesn't put you into a position to argue. You refer to ample evidence but leave it out of the post just like a youtube video. You only have quotes from Paul. How many times does he say to study and know these things for yourself? I recall he says it to Timotheus and he commends the Bereans for checking his work, but you seem to think I'm rejecting Paul for doing it.

If a people are not able to please God through their efforts at righteousness, then it is left up to God himself to solve the problem of sin. Jesus Christ, as the Son of God, is given the task of preaching the Kingdom of God and of dying for sin.

Again its a debate, and you don't know your stuff. Paul may know his stuff, but you haven't been able to explain his conclusions and are not his student as far as I can see.

 

[LightofTruth]

As Paul says elsewhere, 'Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he [Jesus] entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.' [Hebrews 9:12]

The "for us" is not in the Greek text. Jesus himself obtained eternal redemption by his own blood. He is the forerunner into the Holy Place (heaven) of those who also will obtain eternal redemption and follow him.

it's off topic but true anyway.

 

[Tumah]

In an earlier post you admitted that there will be a better way than the old covenant. These are your words, 'Under the new Covenant, we would not need to study in order to access the very same Law, we would be able to look inward and know it.'

I didn't "admit" it. That's what the verse says.

Jeremiah says, '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.' [Jeremiah 31:33]

A better translation consider the first word here:
נתתי - I gave
את
תורתי - My Torah
בקרבם - in their midst
ועל - and on
לבם - their hearts
אכתבנה - I will write it

Jeremiah says, the Torah that G-d gave the Torah in the midst of the nation. And that will be the Torah that He will write on our hearts.

So whilst acknowledging that a new covenant will come into existence in the future, you give no indication as to why God should put his law in your inwards parts, or write it in your heart.

Verse 31 answers this question. Just read the passage. In it's own context.

If it cannot be achieved through study, how do you imagine it will occur?

magic

 

[Tumah]

Jesus himself says he did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it. Nearly any Jew can tell you, that in rabbinic parlance, 'abolish' and 'fulfill' in this sense means to 'nullify' and 'affirm or establish.' I can provide numerous examples of this if you like.

While we do use typically use phrases like these to mean nullify and perform respectively, I'm not sure whether the NT is using the same phraseology here that we would normally use to indicate that. Looking at the Pe****ta it says:
לא אתית דאשׁרא אלא דאמלא
Although I'm not used to the Syriac dialect, I compared the two colored words to other instances in order to figure out their usage.

The blue word here means to permit something thought to be prohibited. It's the same word used for untying a knot.
The red word used here means to fulfill a prophecy.

In order to verify this, I looked up other instances of both this word and the word I would have expected (thinking as I did, like you do).

Romans 3:31
אלא נמוסא הו מקימינן - Rather, the law we are fulfilling.
This word is the word Rabbinic sources would use to indicate fulfilling in the sense of performance. For instance, after I put on my fringe garment, I would use this word to indicate that I am fulfilling the Law of having fringes on my garment.

Matthew 12:17
דנתמלא מדם דאתאמר ביד אשׁעיא נביא דאמר - That it be fulfilled that which was said in the hand of Isaiah the prophet who said.
The root of the bold word here (the last three letters from right to left) is identical with the one in Matt. 5:17. Contextually, we can see that it's used to indicate the fulfillment of a prophecy.

It's possible that the authors of the Syriac version misunderstood the Greek text. I don't know Greek at all, so I wouldn't feel confident making a statement about it. But at least the Syriacs seem to have understood the verse here as saying what is commonly understood.

 

[Lionel Refson]

The first Covenant and Blessing was at the time of Noah. All Covenants after this are false. Why? Because to assume that God made an error in His original Covenant and Blessing is saying God is not Perfect.
Furthermore to argue that God selected one tribe over others at the time of Abraham/Moses/Jesus is also demeaning to God, because God blessed all the descendants of Noah and his sons equally ..."Be fruitful and Multiply" Did God get it wrong? Did God fail to see the future of Humanity?. Yes Noah cursed Canaan but does that trump God's Blessing and Covenant to all humanity?

 

[Wandering Monk]

While we do use typically use phrases like these to mean nullify and perform respectively, I'm not sure whether the NT is using the same phraseology here that we would normally use to indicate that. Looking at the Pe****ta it says:
לא אתית דאשׁרא אלא דאמלא
Although I'm not used to the Syriac dialect, I compared the two colored words to other instances in order to figure out their usage.

The blue word here means to permit something thought to be prohibited. It's the same word used for untying a knot.
The red word used here means to fulfill a prophecy.

In order to verify this, I looked up other instances of both this word and the word I would have expected (thinking as I did, like you do).

Romans 3:31
אלא נמוסא הו מקימינן - Rather, the law we are fulfilling.
This word is the word Rabbinic sources would use to indicate fulfilling in the sense of performance. For instance, after I put on my fringe garment, I would use this word to indicate that I am fulfilling the Law of having fringes on my garment.

Matthew 12:17
דנתמלא מדם דאתאמר ביד אשׁעיא נביא דאמר - That it be fulfilled that which was said in the hand of Isaiah the prophet who said.
The root of the bold word here (the last three letters from right to left) is identical with the one in Matt. 5:17. Contextually, we can see that it's used to indicate the fulfillment of a prophecy.

It's possible that the authors of the Syriac version misunderstood the Greek text. I don't know Greek at all, so I wouldn't feel confident making a statement about it. But at least the Syriacs seem to have understood the verse here as saying what is commonly understood.

The word translated 'fulfill' is the root 'pleroo' in Greek.

In the Septuagint (Greek translation of the OT, from about 250 BC) the word 'pleroo' in Greek translates the Hebrew word 'malei'. It almost always means 'to fill.' But there are other nuances of the word.

Here is the Strongs's definition:

4390. male', maw-lay'; or mala' (Esth. 7 : 5), maw-law'; a prim. root, to fill or (intrans.) be full of, in a wide application (lit. and fig.):--accomplish, confirm, + consecrate, be at an end, be expired, be fenced, fill, fulfil, (be, become, X draw, give in, go) fully (-ly, -ly set, tale), [over-] flow, fulness, furnish, gather (selves, together), presume, replenish, satisfy, set, space, take a [hand-] full, + have wholly.​

Here is an example that conforms to the idea that 'malei' (equivalent to 'pleroo' in the Greek) can mean 'to do.' In the following passage the word seems be used in the sense of 'to confirm, establish, authenticate.'

1 Ki 1:13 Go and get thee in unto king David, and say unto him, Didst not thou, my lord, O king, swear unto thine handmaid, saying, Assuredly Solomon thy son shall reign after me, and he shall sit upon my throne? why then doth Adonijah reign? 14 Behold, while thou yet talkest there with the king, I also will come in after thee, and confirm (Heb. malei, Gk. pleroo) thy words.
​

There is another word in Hebrew often translated as 'fulfil'; it is the word 'kum.' This word is often used by the Sages in the Mishnah and Talmud and means 'to do, to carry out.' From the following passage you can see that 'malei' and 'kum' are nearly synonymous.

Jer 44:25 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, saying; Ye and your wives have both spoken with your mouths, and fulfilled (malei) with your hand, saying, We will surely perform our vows that we have vowed, to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her: ye will surely accomplish (kum) your vows, and surely perform your vows.
​

So to translate the Greek 'pleroo' of Matthew 5:17 as 'end, terminate' is only one possible reading. I believe that the literary/cultural/historical context of this verse lends weight to tranlating 'pleroo' as 'confirm, authenticate' and probably also 'do, keep.'

Finally, this reading is in accord with Jesus' attitude about the Law in his words in Luke 16:17:

But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot of the Law to become void.​

 

[Redemptionsong]

Do you remember this: "We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth." ?

...and you don't seem to be able to make the same connection in scripture that you feel Paul has made, apparently only knowing how to say that Paul has said these things about scripture. That doesn't put you into a position to argue. You refer to ample evidence but leave it out of the post just like a youtube video. You only have quotes from Paul. How many times does he say to study and know these things for yourself? I recall he says it to Timotheus and he commends the Bereans for checking his work, but you seem to think I'm rejecting Paul for doing it.


Again its a debate, and you don't know your stuff. Paul may know his stuff, but you haven't been able to explain his conclusions and are not his student as far as I can see.

You and I have very different ways of approaching scripture, Brickjectivity.

My starting point is a God that is perfect, revealing through scripture a Word that is perfect. It is my pleasure and privilege to be able to study these scriptures and prayerfully understand God's will and purpose. This I have been doing for over 40 years.

I do not present arguments for the sake of scoring points or of making others feel inferior. The presentation of truth, as I see it, is to offer up scriptures that reveal what God has to say. So, when quoting Paul I am providing the best quality of argument available. You may think that you are better able to argue the case than Paul, but I am not that arrogant. I understand what he is saying, but I know he presents the case more succinctly than I could. You might note, as well, that Paul doesn't formulate an argument without constant quotation from the Tanakh. Does this weaken his case?

And to answer your scornful comment, Paul's preaching was accepted by the evil spirit when it answered the sons of Sceva. 'Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?'.

I certainly don't reject the Gospel preached by Jesus and by Paul.

Paul's argument throughout Hebrews is that the earthly Mosaic institutions are but a shadow of the things in heaven: 'the representation and shadow of the heavenlies' (8:5); 'a simile for the present time' (9:9); 'figures of the true' (9:24), and so on.

It is also significant that the word 'better' is used more often in Hebrews than in all the rest of the New Testament. It occurs 13 times, and includes such phrases as 'better things', 'a better covenant', 'better promises', 'better sacrifices' and a 'better possession'.

 

[Brickjectivity]

You and I have very different ways of approaching scripture, Brickjectivity.

My starting point is a God that is perfect, revealing through scripture a Word that is perfect. It is my pleasure and privilege to be able to study these scriptures and prayerfully understand God's will and purpose. This I have been doing for over 40 years.

I do not present arguments for the sake of scoring points or of making others feel inferior. The presentation of truth, as I see it, is to offer up scriptures that reveal what God has to say. So, when quoting Paul I am providing the best quality of argument available. You may think that you are better able to argue the case than Paul, but I am not that arrogant. I understand what he is saying, but I know he presents the case more succinctly than I could. You might note, as well, that Paul doesn't formulate an argument without constant quotation from the Tanakh. Does this weaken his case?

And to answer your scornful comment, Paul's preaching was accepted by the evil spirit when it answered the sons of Sceva. 'Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?'.

Its Paul's reasoning not his authority that is in question, and that is a fair thing to discuss. It is what he asks people to do, and to do it requires finding his sources where he gets his conclusions: Psalms, Deuteronomy where and how. Only then can his reasoning be discussed. Quote mining him is just speaking in tongues.

I certainly don't reject the Gospel preached by Jesus and by Paul.

I think you have made that clear, so there is no need.

Paul's argument throughout Hebrews is that the earthly Mosaic institutions are but a shadow of the things in heaven: 'the representation and shadow of the heavenlies' (8:5); 'a simile for the present time' (9:9); 'figures of the true' (9:24), and so on.

It is also significant that the word 'better' is used more often in Hebrews than in all the rest of the New Testament. It occurs 13 times, and includes such phrases as 'better things', 'a better covenant', 'better promises', 'better sacrifices' and a 'better possession'.

That argument is weak since you are quote mining him and cannot originate his arguments for yourself. The roots must go into the deep. This general debates, mixture of Christians and others. They deserve better treatment than quote rain. So do you, I add.

 

[metis]

...revealing through scripture a Word that is perfect.

Which Bible is supposedly perfect? Please don't say "the original manuscripts" because we don't have any of them.

 

[Tumah]

The word translated 'fulfill' is the root 'pleroo' in Greek.

In the Septuagint (Greek translation of the OT, from about 250 BC) the word 'pleroo' in Greek translates the Hebrew word 'malei'. It almost always means 'to fill.' But there are other nuances of the word.

Here is the Strongs's definition:

4390. male', maw-lay'; or mala' (Esth. 7 : 5), maw-law'; a prim. root, to fill or (intrans.) be full of, in a wide application (lit. and fig.):--accomplish, confirm, + consecrate, be at an end, be expired, be fenced, fill, fulfil, (be, become, X draw, give in, go) fully (-ly, -ly set, tale), [over-] flow, fulness, furnish, gather (selves, together), presume, replenish, satisfy, set, space, take a [hand-] full, + have wholly.​

Here is an example that conforms to the idea that 'malei' (equivalent to 'pleroo' in the Greek) can mean 'to do.' In the following passage the word seems be used in the sense of 'to confirm, establish, authenticate.'

1 Ki 1:13 Go and get thee in unto king David, and say unto him, Didst not thou, my lord, O king, swear unto thine handmaid, saying, Assuredly Solomon thy son shall reign after me, and he shall sit upon my throne? why then doth Adonijah reign? 14 Behold, while thou yet talkest there with the king, I also will come in after thee, and confirm (Heb. malei, Gk. pleroo) thy words.
​

There is another word in Hebrew often translated as 'fulfil'; it is the word 'kum.' This word is often used by the Sages in the Mishnah and Talmud and means 'to do, to carry out.' From the following passage you can see that 'malei' and 'kum' are nearly synonymous.

Jer 44:25 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, saying; Ye and your wives have both spoken with your mouths, and fulfilled (malei) with your hand, saying, We will surely perform our vows that we have vowed, to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her: ye will surely accomplish (kum) your vows, and surely perform your vows.
​

So to translate the Greek 'pleroo' of Matthew 5:17 as 'end, terminate' is only one possible reading. I believe that the literary/cultural/historical context of this verse lends weight to tranlating 'pleroo' as 'confirm, authenticate' and probably also 'do, keep.'

Finally, this reading is in accord with Jesus' attitude about the Law in his words in Luke 16:17:

But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot of the Law to become void.​

I am familiar with both of these words and its actually these two words that I discuss in the comment you are responding to. However, it's not quite as simple as looking to the Hebrew roots to determine their usage. Syriac is a dialect of Aramaic. Different dialects add their own nuance to words and that's what determines their usage. That's why, even though I already know Hebrew and Jewish dialects of Aramaic, I turned to other instances in the Pe****ta to determine correct Syriac phraseology.

So what I found, as described above, is that the Syriac dialect appears to use the word malei in the sense of fulfilling a prophecy and kum when speaking about upholding or performing a law. I believe there are a number of examples throughout the Pe****ta of this that I can bring to buttress this. In the case above, it uses the word malei, hence my conclusion that the Pe****ta at least understands that what is being said here is that Jesus is fulfilling the prophecy of the Law and makes no mention about whether he is upholding or performing the Law.

As a side note, Rabbinic works use the word kum exclusively for both of these meanings.

All that being said, as I said before, I don't know Greek at all, so I won't make a claim about what the authors intended. I can only comment about how the Syriac authors appear to have understood the statement.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Which Bible is supposedly perfect? Please don't say "the original manuscripts" because we don't have any of them.

If you read my wording carefully, I don't say that any version of the Bible is perfect. But the scriptures are coherent and accurate enough, even in the majority of translations, to enable a person to discover the truth of Christ, who is the living Word.

 

[metis]

If you read my wording carefully, I don't say that any version of the Bible is perfect. But the scriptures are coherent and accurate enough, even in the majority of translations, to enable a person to discover the truth of Christ, who is the living Word.

I did read it carefully, but thanks for the clarification of what you were trying to say.

BTW, there's no objective way of checking out most of what's written in terms of its accuracy, but I tend to believe that this is where the Holy Spirit (G-d's Spirit in Torah) to come in to at least encourage a basic understanding of what's being taught.

 

[Redemptionsong]

I didn't "admit" it. That's what the verse says.



A better translation consider the first word here:
נתתי - I gave
את
תורתי - My Torah
בקרבם - in their midst
ועל - and on
לבם - their hearts
אכתבנה - I will write it

Jeremiah says, the Torah that G-d gave the Torah in the midst of the nation. And that will be the Torah that He will write on our hearts.


Verse 31 answers this question. Just read the passage. In it's own context.


magic

Verse 34 of Jeremiah 31 gives the purpose of receiving God's Spirit (the Torah written on the heart) - which is to 'Know the LORD'.
IMO, knowing the Lord is at-one-ment. Atonement makes eternal life possible because the soul is united with the Spirit of God.

The LORD says, 'I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.'
IMO,atonement is not possible without the forgiveness of sin. If temporal sacrifices fail to provide lasting forgiveness then a more worthy sacrifice is necessary. Only God is able to make that sacrifice and save his people.

Psalm 40: 6-8: 'Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.
Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart.'

If this were David writing about himself, he could not have said 'thy law is within my heart' because this is a condition of the new covenant that had not, during David's lifetime, come in effect. So it must be a reference to the Messiah. The Messiah says, Lo, I come. And then in verse 10 he says, 'I have declared thy faithfulness and thy salvation:' Again, this is something that only the Messiah is able to do.

Which is why Paul writes in Hebrews this reference to the coming Messiah: 'Then said I, Lo I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldst not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are the offered by the law; Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.' [Hebrews 10: 7-10]

[For Brickjectivity's sake] This means that God no longer has pleasure in temporal sacrifices but has come to offer himself (his own Son) as an eternal sacrifice for all men.

 

[Redemptionsong]

I did read it carefully, but thanks for the clarification of what you were trying to say.

BTW, there's no objective way of checking out most of what's written in terms of its accuracy, but I tend to believe that this is where the Holy Spirit (G-d's Spirit in Torah) to come in to at least encourage a basic understanding of what's being taught.

I agree with you wholeheartedly! The Holy Spirit is a Spirit of love, and love affects a tree for good, such that its fruit also becomes good!

 

[Brickjectivity]

The problem is that people broke the covenant. that is the reason why new was done through Jesus. But God has not broken it, God is always loyal.

Another Paul quote miner with no background. Is the OP asking what Paul thinks? No, it's 100% not asking that; and apparently you haven't researched where Paul gets his own stuff from. That's why you can only quote mine. Hence you have no valid argument except to claim Paul is from God. Its no argument at all except an appeal to authority outside of the scriptures.

[For Brickjectivity's sake] This means that God no longer has pleasure in temporal sacrifices but has come to offer himself (his own Son) as an eternal sacrifice for all men.

Still quote mining Paul's letters without following his arguments, deriving them for yourself. No idea what he's talking about do you?