EVERLASTING OLD COVENANT (Jew V Christian)

[Tumah]

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'.

No it doesn't. It gives that as a consequence of having our sins forgiven.
The purpose appears to be tied to verse 31 - currently, it's possible to transgress the covenant.

IMO, knowing the Lord is at-one-ment. Atonement makes eternal life possible because the soul is united with the Spirit of God.

Knowing G-d is not atonement. Knowing G-d is knowing G-d (Pro. 3:6). Atonement does help in coming closer to G-d to some degree.

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.

Naturally. This is what Jeremiah complains about in chapter 7 and 8.

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.

Sacrifices do not provide forgiveness at all. Only repentance does that. That's what Psa. 51 is all about.
Once you internalize that concept, you'll understand that your last sentence here is misplaced.

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.

No it's not. The new covenant isn't saying that only after G-d inscribes the Torah on our hearts will it be possible to internalize it. It's saying that G-d is going to inscribe the Torah on our hearts. Someone who strives to perfect himself by studying the Torah and internalizing it's precepts until it replaces his own base desires - that's perfectly possible albeit exceedingly hard. And David was one of those who reached that level. Most of the rest of us, will have to wait until the new covenant for G-d to do it for us.

I see that you asked a similar question earlier, but I understood previously that you were asking on a national level, not an individual one. As a nation, we do not expect that everyone (and even the majority) will strive as much as David did to attain this level, so it's necessary for G-d to intervene. On an individual level though, it's definitely possible.

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.

No, salvation doesn't mean being saved from Hell. Salvation means being saved from any difficult situation. David went through many and was saved by G-d from all of them. He is perfectly capable of declaring G-d's faithfulness and salvation.

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]

We already know that Paul is on a mission to get gentiles and the way to do that is by anulling the Law and here he's done that by misrepresenting the Psalmist. David is saying in that Psalm the same thing that Jer. 7:21-23 says: G-d doesn't want sin offerings, He wants people not to sin in the first place. That's what David is saying. He doesn't sin so that he could bring sin offerings to make G-d happy. He strives to not sin -to do G-d's Will - in the first place.

 

[sooda]

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.

Jesus was born and crucified long before the Book of Hebrews was written.

 

[Redemptionsong]

No, salvation doesn't mean being saved from Hell. Salvation means being saved from any difficult situation. David went through many and was saved by G-d from all of them. He is perfectly capable of declaring G-d's faithfulness and salvation.

David may have been a great king, but he was also mortal, and a man who sinned. The evidence of his sinfulness (explicitly mentioned in the Tanakh) was corruption, and his tomb exists to this day. How, therefore, can he declare God's faithfulness and salvation. He remains dead!

We already know that Paul is on a mission to get gentiles and the way to do that is by anulling the Law and here he's done that by misrepresenting the Psalmist. David is saying in that Psalm the same thing that Jer. 7:21-23 says: G-d doesn't want sin offerings, He wants people not to sin in the first place. That's what David is saying. He doesn't sin so that he could bring sin offerings to make G-d happy. He strives to not sin -to do G-d's Will - in the first place.

But despite all David's efforts not to sin, he failed! That's why scripture tells us explicitly that all men have sinned [1 Kings 8:46; Is.53:6; Ps 130:3].

Only God is without sin.

To suggest that you simply try a bit harder is a joke. Didn't Moses try hard enough? Didn't David try hard enough?

Why does it say in Psalm 89, 'But thou hast cast off and abhorred, thou hast been wroth with thine anointed. Thou hast made void the covenant of thy servant: thou hast profaned his crown by casting it to the ground.'?

It isn't God that profanes the anointed one, it's his own people!

Verse 34. 'My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.'

The Messiah, Jesus Christ, is the mediator of a better covenant, according to scripture.

 

[Tumah]

David may have been a great king, but he was also mortal, and a man who sinned. The evidence of his sinfulness (explicitly mentioned in the Tanakh) was corruption, and his tomb exists to this day. How, therefore, can he declare God's faithfulness and salvation. He remains dead!

The quoted Psalm is from after (or rather a part of) his repentance. That has nothing to do with his death.
That has nothing to do with him being able to declare G-d's faithfulness and salvation either.

But despite all David's efforts not to sin, he failed! That's why scripture tells us explicitly that all men have sinned [1 Kings 8:46; Is.53:6; Ps 130:3].

What does that have to do with anything?

Only God is without sin.

That's not true at all. Tables are also without sin. Chairs. Soda. There are plenty of things that are without sin. Water. Perhaps we should sacrifice water.

To suggest that you simply try a bit harder is a joke. Didn't Moses try hard enough? Didn't David try hard enough?

Of course they did. They reached the goal. I don't get what you're getting at.

Why does it say in Psalm 89, 'But thou hast cast off and abhorred, thou hast been wroth with thine anointed. Thou hast made void the covenant of thy servant: thou hast profaned his crown by casting it to the ground.'?

It isn't God that profanes the anointed one, it's his own people!

Again, I'm not sure what you're talking about. This Psalm is talking about how G-d made these promises to David, yet the house of David is plundered and vacant. Seemingly, G-d has cast David and His promises to him aside.

Verse 34. 'My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.'

The Messiah, Jesus Christ, is the mediator of a better covenant, according to scripture.

You just quoted a verse in Psalm saying that G-d would not break His covenant , nor change what He's already stated.
And then you stated that G-d made a new covenant and changed what He'd previously stated.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Again, I'm not sure what you're talking about. This Psalm is talking about how G-d made these promises to David, yet the house of David is plundered and vacant. Seemingly, G-d has cast David and His promises to him aside.

Do you really believe that God would make promises and not keep them?
God says, 'Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David. His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me.' [Ps. 89:35,36.]

Yet, God goes on to say 'Thou hast', 'Thou hast', 'Thou hast'. This is talking to David's own people. God says, verses 44, 45: 'Thou hast made his glory to cease, and cast his throne down to the ground. The days of his youth hast thou shortened: thou hast covered him with shame. Selah.'

This is the same 'David', verse 27, about whom God says, 'Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.' So these references are not just about the earthly king David but also about the son of David, the Messiah.

This gives credence to the view that the covenant spoken of in verse 34 could be applied to both old and new covenants. The old covenant is the earthly covenant, the new is the heavenly. The first is sealed with the blood of animal sacrifices, the new is sealed with the blood of the eternal Saviour. Which is better?

What is the point of repenting but not taking notice of the help that God gives us? The truth is, we should be dependent on God, and we should, like Abel make an offering of a lamb. Thinking we can please God with our own sacrifices, like Cain, suggests that 'sin still lieth at the door'.

 

[Lionel Refson]

Do you really believe that God would make promises and not keep them?
God says, 'Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David. His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me.' [Ps. 89:35,36.]

Yet, God goes on to say 'Thou hast', 'Thou hast', 'Thou hast'. This is talking to David's own people. God says, verses 44, 45: 'Thou hast made his glory to cease, and cast his throne down to the ground. The days of his youth hast thou shortened: thou hast covered him with shame. Selah.'

This is the same 'David', verse 27, about whom God says, 'Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.' So these references are not just about the earthly king David but also about the son of David, the Messiah.

This gives credence to the view that the covenant spoken of in verse 34 could be applied to both old and new covenants. The old covenant is the earthly covenant, the new is the heavenly. The first is sealed with the blood of animal sacrifices, the new is sealed with the blood of the eternal Saviour. Which is better?

What is the point of repenting but not taking notice of the help that God gives us? The truth is, we should be dependent on God, and we should, like Abel make an offering of a lamb. Thinking we can please God with our own sacrifices, like Cain, suggests that 'sin still lieth at the door'.

God only made one promise and one Blessing (in itself a kind of promise) ie after the Flood. To think that God made future contrary promises is to deny the Perfection of God. Ergo I have to conclude you are both arguing about the self-interested (from a tribal viewpoint) scribblings of human.

 

[Tumah]

Do you really believe that God would make promises and not keep them?
God says, 'Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David. His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me.' [Ps. 89:35,36.]

Of course not. The Psalmist is taking artistic license as they often do. He doesn't mean that G-d literally went back on His word, but that it appears that way and that should be a reason in itself for G-d to help. The ending is a supplication to G-d to return His aid.

Yet, God goes on to say 'Thou hast', 'Thou hast', 'Thou hast'. This is talking to David's own people. God says, verses 44, 45: 'Thou hast made his glory to cease, and cast his throne down to the ground. The days of his youth hast thou shortened: thou hast covered him with shame. Selah.'

No. G-d is not the narrator of this Psalm. The narrator is the Psalmist. You've gotten confused because in verse 20, the Psalmist begins quoting G-d in the first person which he uses as the background for describing the current situation which he begins in verse 39. Then in verse 48 he turns to supplicating G-d for help.

This is the same 'David', verse 27, about whom God says, 'Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.' So these references are not just about the earthly king David but also about the son of David, the Messiah.

Of course this is about about King David. It's recalling Psa. 2 (specifically 2:7 here), which refers to 2 Sam. 5:17.

This gives credence to the view that the covenant spoken of in verse 34 could be applied to both old and new covenants. The old covenant is the earthly covenant, the new is the heavenly. The first is sealed with the blood of animal sacrifices, the new is sealed with the blood of the eternal Saviour. Which is better?

It's better to stop fabricating nonsense out of whole cloth.

What is the point of repenting but not taking notice of the help that God gives us? The truth is, we should be dependent on God, and we should, like Abel make an offering of a lamb. Thinking we can please God with our own sacrifices, like Cain, suggests that 'sin still lieth at the door'.

We shouldn't think we can please G-d with our sacrifices. We should make a sacrifice, like Abel did.
Are you even aware of what you're saying?

 

[Redemptionsong]

Of course not. The Psalmist is taking artistic license as they often do. He doesn't mean that G-d literally went back on His word, but that it appears that way and that should be a reason in itself for G-d to help. The ending is a supplication to G-d to return His aid.


No. G-d is not the narrator of this Psalm. The narrator is the Psalmist. You've gotten confused because in verse 20, the Psalmist begins quoting G-d in the first person which he uses as the background for describing the current situation which he begins in verse 39. Then in verse 48 he turns to supplicating G-d for help.


Of course this is about about King David. It's recalling Psa. 2 (specifically 2:7 here), which refers to 2 Sam. 5:17.


It's better to stop fabricating nonsense out of whole cloth.


We shouldn't think we can please G-d with our sacrifices. We should make a sacrifice, like Abel did.
Are you even aware of what you're saying?

So, we are in agreement that we should make a sacrifice like Abel did!
Do you make the sacrifice of a lamb? I do. He's called Jesus Christ and he's the Lamb of God. Can you tell me what lamb you sacrifice?

You may think I fabricate nonsense, but that's because you are attempting to nullify all the prophecies to the coming Messiah that are so evident in the Tanakh.

You have even referred me to Psalm 2, as if this is evidence only of the earthly king David, and not the Messiah. Yet the words, 'Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee' are quoted by Paul in Acts 13:32, 33:
'And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same to us as their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.'

Now, in Paul's time, nearly all the men preaching Jesus as the Messiah were Orthodox Jews. In the case of Paul, a Pharisaic Jew who had been a zealous persecutor of the Christian sect, we have someone intimately familiar with the Tanakh. Yet you, Tumah, seem to think you know better than he!

Clearly you don't believe that the new covenant has yet been made by God. This means that Jeremiah's prophecy, has not, for you, yet taken place. 'But 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'.

For me this prophecy is a present reality because it's a reference to the baptism in the Holy Spirit, which Jesus Christ came to bring. I could not make such a claim were that Holy Spirit not available, and it was made available through the crucifixion, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ to His throne in heaven. As a Gentile, I am aware that the Holy Spirit was given to Jews first, but then to Gentiles also. As Paul says, 'But we believe that through the grace [Holy Spirit] of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they [Gentiles].' [Acts 15:11]

I guess you are waiting for the coming of the Messiah for the fulfilment of Jeremiah's prophecy?
This itself raises many issues and difficulties. How to recognize your Messiah for a start. You say he will be born as a human on earth. Christians, meanwhile, will be looking to heaven for the Day of the Lord.
You have lost the records necessary to show the Messiah's line of descent from David. So, how is this overcome?
To me it points towards the inevitable rise of a false Messiah, and the leading astray of many.

Jews, like you, should be leading the way in making known the Messiah of the Tanakh, especially since the judgment of God cannot be far off.

 

[Redemptionsong]

God only made one promise and one Blessing (in itself a kind of promise) ie after the Flood. To think that God made future contrary promises is to deny the Perfection of God. Ergo I have to conclude you are both arguing about the self-interested (from a tribal viewpoint) scribblings of human.

The Bible is full of the promises of God.
One that is relevant to the present discussion is 1 Samuel 10:6,
'And the Spirit of the LORD will come upon thee, and thou shalt prophesy with them, and shalt be turned into another man.'

 

[Lionel Refson]

The Bible is full of the promises of God.
One that is relevant to the present discussion is 1 Samuel 10:6,
'And the Spirit of the LORD will come upon thee, and thou shalt prophesy with them, and shalt be turned into another man.'

Actually the Bible only has one promise if you apply the filter of tribal self-interest, something that God's first blessing by implication, ruled out.... ie God blessed Noah and his Sons equally!!
Therefore the Bible IMHO only has one promise and one blessing. The rest are the words of tribes ie God would not contradict God by giving a blessing and a promise and then later on changing it. a

 

[Redemptionsong]

Actually the Bible only has one promise if you apply the filter of tribal self-interest, something that God's first blessing by implication, ruled out.... ie God blessed Noah and his Sons equally!!
Therefore the Bible IMHO only has one promise and one blessing. The rest are the words of tribes ie God would not contradict God by giving a blessing and a promise and then later on changing it. a

I beg to differ. When God makes a promise it has two applications; one being earthly, and therefore temporary (tribal); the other being heavenly, and therefore eternal.

 

[Lionel Refson]

I beg to differ. When God makes a promise it has two applications; one being earthly, and therefore temporary (tribal); the other being heavenly, and therefore eternal.

But the first Blessing and Promise was not tribal, and they were universal ie made to the whole of humanity.
Genesis also clearly states that God's promise was for everlasting generations (and by logical implication so too was the blessing)

 

[Redemptionsong]

But the first Blessing and Promise was not tribal, and they were universal ie made to the whole of humanity.
Genesis also clearly states that God's promise was for everlasting generations (and by logical implication so too was the blessing)

The blessing you mentioned was made to Noah and his three sons, and their wives; a total of eight persons. In that sense it was limited. But through those eight persons the whole of humanity receives a promise. This promise therefore includes the 'generation of Jesus Christ' [Matt. 1:1], and only through him does it become eternal. If it had not been for Jesus Christ we would still be counting the generations of Adam [Genesis 5:1], and the promise would not have been everlasting.

 

[Lionel Refson]

The blessing you mentioned was made to Noah and his three sons, and their wives; a total of eight persons. In that sense it was limited. But through those eight persons the whole of humanity receives a promise. This promise therefore includes the 'generation of Jesus Christ' [Matt. 1:1], and only through him does it become eternal. If it had not been for Jesus Christ we would still be counting the generations of Adam [Genesis 5:1], and the promise would not have been everlasting.

Whoa there
Genesis [9:16] When the bow is in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.

The promise and by implication Gods Blessing was for everlasting generations. No need for any more and no need for a Jesus IMHO of course!

When the Creator spoke to Noah and his children, there were no religious commands. The Creator gave us no orders, no religious doctrines, no religious customs to observe, no religious blessings to recite, no instructions to build temples, or keep days holy, or murder the non-believer, nothing at all like this. There were no instructions how we were to worship, how we were to pray, how we should dress, who would come in the future to save us or lead us, and so on. There was no mention of any of this and to assume that the Creator made an error, or an omission or somehow forgot to tell us any of this is broken thinking. The Creator cannot be wrong, therefore what was said is all that was meant.

Instead we were told to be fruitful, to multiply and that we would have dominion over the animals. God further told us that never again would the Creator destroy us and that was promised in the Covenant, an everlasting covenant, one for all time, and therefore we could never be destroyed, not just by flood, but indeed by anything or else it could not have been everlasting and the God that could not err, would have so erred.. God also made it clear in genesis 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man..

God blessed us to be fruitful and multiply and to be fruitful implies that we should be so to self and others.. The Creator promised never again to destroy us and told us in no uncertain terms that even if we were to commit the greatest possible sin, that of taking a life, then the punishment was up to ourselves, humanity to mete out, not God. But let us not forget Genesis 5 i.e. that there would be a reckoning in the afterlife. As the Creator said in Genesis 9:5 But your blood, of your souls, I will demand [an account]; from the hand of every beast I will demand it, and from the hand of man, from the hand of each man, his brother, I will demand the soul of man.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Whoa there
Genesis [9:16] When the bow is in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.

The promise and by implication Gods Blessing was for everlasting generations. No need for any more and no need for a Jesus IMHO of course!

When the Creator spoke to Noah and his children, there were no religious commands. The Creator gave us no orders, no religious doctrines, no religious customs to observe, no religious blessings to recite, no instructions to build temples, or keep days holy, or murder the non-believer, nothing at all like this. There were no instructions how we were to worship, how we were to pray, how we should dress, who would come in the future to save us or lead us, and so on. There was no mention of any of this and to assume that the Creator made an error, or an omission or somehow forgot to tell us any of this is broken thinking. The Creator cannot be wrong, therefore what was said is all that was meant.

Instead we were told to be fruitful, to multiply and that we would have dominion over the animals. God further told us that never again would the Creator destroy us and that was promised in the Covenant, an everlasting covenant, one for all time, and therefore we could never be destroyed, not just by flood, but indeed by anything or else it could not have been everlasting and the God that could not err, would have so erred.. God also made it clear in genesis 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man..

God blessed us to be fruitful and multiply and to be fruitful implies that we should be so to self and others.. The Creator promised never again to destroy us and told us in no uncertain terms that even if we were to commit the greatest possible sin, that of taking a life, then the punishment was up to ourselves, humanity to mete out, not God. But let us not forget Genesis 5 i.e. that there would be a reckoning in the afterlife. As the Creator said in Genesis 9:5 But your blood, of your souls, I will demand [an account]; from the hand of every beast I will demand it, and from the hand of man, from the hand of each man, his brother, I will demand the soul of man.

Genesis 1:1 says, 'In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.' This is sometimes referred to as 'the first heaven and the first earth'. In Revelation 21:1, it says, 'And I saw a new heaven and a new earth:' Why? Because the first heaven and the first earth 'were passed away'.

If, as you suggest, God is going to bless everlasting generations of sinful men then there would be no 'new heaven and earth'. Corruption in your eyes is everlasting.

In my eyes, God provides a Saviour, Jesus Christ, and through him we are able to receive salvation, incorruption, and immortality. It's Jesus Christ that makes the blessing to Noah an eternal covenant.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

There is no such thing as an "Old Covenant." God's covenant with the Jews has not passed away, or been replaced. It is the Original Covenant and is good until the New Covenant of Jeremiah comes into place during the Messianic Era. How will we know that has happened? When there is no temptation to break the law, and every person knows God (there are no atheists in the world). The expression "Old Covenant" needs to be thrown away.

Special thanks to the Catholic Church which recognizes that our Covenant is eternal and ongoing.

 

[Redemptionsong]

There is no such thing as an "Old Covenant." God's covenant with the Jews has not passed away, or been replaced. It is the Original Covenant and is good until the New Covenant of Jeremiah comes into place during the Messianic Era. How will we know that has happened? When there is no temptation to break the law, and every person knows God (there are no atheists in the world). The expression "Old Covenant" needs to be thrown away.

Special thanks to the Catholic Church which recognizes that our Covenant is eternal and ongoing.

The new, or better, covenant of God, prophesied by Jeremiah, is with us today.

What did Tanna debe Eliyyahu teach? [Sanhedrin 97a] 'The world is to exist six thousand years. In the first two thousand there was desolation; two thousand years the Torah flourished; and the next two thousand years is the Messianic era, [97b] but through our many iniquities all these years have been lost.'

The messianic years may be lost to Jews who do not recognize their Messiah, but they are not lost to the remnant of [Messianic] Jews who, along with many more Gentiles, recognize Jesus Christ as the Anointed One. He came exactly at the time predicted, and fulfilled all the covenants made in the Tanakh.

At the Last Supper Jesus said, 'This cup is the new testament [covenant] in my blood, which is shed for you.' [Luke 22:20]

If you find this hard to believe, then you should look carefully at the many identification marks of the promised Messiah, and then read the New Testament.

1. The seed of the woman who would bruise Satan’s head. [Gen.3:152. Of Abraham’s seed. [Genesis17:7][See also Gen. 22:18; 21:12; 28:14; 12:1-3.]

3. Of the house of David. [2 Sam. 7:12, 13] [See also Gen. 49:10; Psalm132:11; 2:12; 89:3,4; 110:1,2; Isa. 11:1; Jer. 23:5; 33:17,20,21.]

4. Preceded by a Messenger.[Mal.3:1][See also Isa.40:3]

5. Born of an unmarried woman/virgin:[Isa. 7:14]

6. Born in Bethlehem. [Mic. 5:2]

7. The Shepherd. [Isa. 40:11][See also Ps.23:1-4; 80:1; Zech.13:7; Ezek. 34:23, 24]

8. The Prophet. [Deut. 18:15]

9. The Priest. [Ps. 110:4][Also Zech.6:13]

10. The King. [Zech.9:9] [See also Ps. 2:6; Jer.23:5,6.]

11. The Redeemer. [Isa. 59:20][See also Isa. 19:20; 45:15; 44:22, 23; 49:6-10; Hos. 1:7; Jer.33:16]

12. Sought by Gentiles. [Isa.11:10]

 

[rosends]

The new, or better, covenant of God, prophesied by Jeremiah, is with us today.

What did Tanna debe Eliyyahu teach? [Sanhedrin 97a] 'The world is to exist six thousand years. In the first two thousand there was desolation; two thousand years the Torah flourished; and the next two thousand years is the Messianic era, [97b] but through our many iniquities all these years have been lost.'

please don't quote the talmud if you don;t understand what you are quoting. This section of Sanhedrin has a lot of opinions about a lot of things. Choosing one and trying to tie it two what you think it should mean does you no service. Pay attention to the final position in this section:

(R. Shmuel bar Nachmani): Tifach (inflate, i.e. afflictions should come upon) people who calculate the time of Mashi'ach

 

[TransmutingSoul]

When I asked a Jew about whether the new covenant made the old covenant obsolete, here was his response.

"I will start with a verse “The law of the LORD is perfect, restoring the soul.” Psalm 19:8
God law is perfect. Let me begin…
So why is there a contradiction you ask.

Where a new vs old concept maybe confused is in Jeremiah. The issue at hand is a discussion with the Jewish people. Let me explain by citing Jeremiah 31:31 claiming it speaks of a “New Covenant” that makes the covenant of Torah Law obsolete, as the New Testament says, “By calling the new covenant ‘new’, He has made the first obsolete" – Hebrews 8:13 which you cited in your discussion raises this.

This claim that you say contradicts dozens of passages that say the commandments are eternal, for example, "The 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. God also promised He would never break His covenant with the Jews as it says, “I will not reject them or abhor them so as to destroy them completely, breaking my covenant with them” – Leviticus 26:44. In context, Jeremiah 31 speaks of a new and improved covenant. In addition to not being broken by God, this covenant will no longer be broken by the Jewish people because, in the future messianic age, God will give the Jews a new heart, and they will no longer be tempted to transgress the commandments. (See Ezekiel 36:26-27)

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.

God made His Covernant with man that He would never leave man without guidance.

Man was dispersed across the globe and God kept His Covernant and has guided every man and Nation with a Messenger and/or Inspiration.

Our part in that Covernant was to accept God's given Messenger and guidance, as to bring forth an ever advancing civilization based in the Love of and Obedience to God

The story of Adam (man) and Eve (our soul) tells of our struggle to accept Gods Covernants.

The Covernant mentioned in all Holy Books of a day (age) of peace was fulfilled in 1844 with the Bab (Gate) and then Baha'u'llah (Glory of God).

It is again our choice to embrace the Covernant in this age.

Regards Tony

 

[Lionel Refson]

Genesis 1:1 says, 'In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.' This is sometimes referred to as 'the first heaven and the first earth'. In Revelation 21:1, it says, 'And I saw a new heaven and a new earth:' Why? Because the first heaven and the first earth 'were passed away'.

If, as you suggest, God is going to bless everlasting generations of sinful men then there would be no 'new heaven and earth'. Corruption in your eyes is everlasting.

In my eyes, God provides a Saviour, Jesus Christ, and through him we are able to receive salvation, incorruption, and immortality. It's Jesus Christ that makes the blessing to Noah an eternal covenant.

Corruption in my eyes is NOT everlasting. You have twisted my words and you clearly do not believe God is Perfection. . God blesses everlasting generations of humanity but we have freewill and if we wish to do bad things or behave counter to this Blessing then that is up to us. God's promise and Blessing are eternal and unique unless you believe that God somehow got the words wrong. Genesis 9:6 reminds us that even the murderer must be dealt with by human hands and therefore sin on this Earth, which is human against human is to be dealt with by humanity not God as God in 9:6 makes it clear this world is up to us and we strive and have striven to weed our corruption, over the millennia .
The only sin we could possibly committ against God, IMO, is to be unfruitful to self and others ie to ignore God's Blessing, but then God already knows this, already knew we would be like this and so waits. In the next life we will have to make an account of our behaviour. Revelation, a much later text than Genesis has no relevance in my eyes. The first blessing and Covenant of God are the only ones God gave to the whole of Humanity. Any future blessings or covenants are just wishful thinking in the eyes of humanity.

if you believe in Jesus as anything other than an ordinary human being, you are basically saying that God sent his Son to heal the world and yet all that really happened was yet further rifts and splits in Human Society. God therefore miscalculated the effect of sending his Son and couldn't have foreseen for example the Crusades etc That is not the sort of God I believe in.
One Blessing, One Covenant, no religious instruction, and no future messiahs or new heavens/earths. God is not involved in this world. No one has ever been sent and we should return to study the original Blessing and Covenant more carefully as I have done . My link provides more info on what I have learnt if you are interested. .