Here on Nairaland, there have been two camps regarding the issue of the Covenants: those who think that there is no law anymore and those who think that there is still a law. Immediately a person says anything at all that might suggest that he knows about the debate, everyone in these camps attempts to put him on one side or the other. They forget the meaning of the answer of the Angel of the Lord when Joshua demanded to know on whose side He was: He said that He was on no side but the Lord's.

Jesus said that in His Father's House there are many mansions. One thing that can tell us Christians is that there is enough space within God to accommodate our "differences". We can all be Christians and differ on the meaning of Christ in particular situations. The only thing that Christians do not differ on is Who Jesus Christ is. How He could be that Person may vary in theory from one Christian to another but that Jesus Christ is God come in the flesh to redeem us from the Fall and unto Himself is non-negotiable. It is the bedrock of our confession. But we may vary in how that could be or in how it affects the particulars of our lives. That is because we are each a unique entity and in a unique set of circumstances. Thus, we need not go to war over what angle at which to hold the communal spoon when we eat the communal meal.

We can afford to be different. We can afford to have different experiences and be at different stages of development. There is no need to fight over these. All we need to do is hold fast our confession - that because the Lord Himself came to save us from our rebellion with the pouring out of His Holy Blood we have been saved indeed. This is what makes us one, one Family, one Body, one Priesthood, one Royalty. Let us not allow the enemy to tear us apart because we hold different pieces of the "puzzle" or revelation of Christ, for it is all one Revelation, one Christ.

To end this post and continue what I have to say in a new one, let me give a small anecdote. A violin had always practiced by itself. It had a very soulful melody that moved many a hardened heart to tears when it played. It thought it made the true music although it figured that its cousin the cello wasn't too bad. It once heard of a stranger from foreign lands that was said to make wonderful music as well. The stranger was called a piano. But it thought it had to be a tall tale for how could any music be made without drawing a bow across strings? Even a rather curious cousin of its, the double bass which somehow managed to produce music when plucked still had strings and a bow which was drawn across them to produce music, so there was something good about even that one, but to not require a bow at all and be played somehow by pushing funny impossible things they called keys was just way out there.

That is to speak nothing of a complete impossibility called drums. The violin also had at some point heard of a monstrousity that some fools believed could produce music without even strings, to say nothing of bows but it promptly waved aside such foolishness.

But the day came when the violin after so much practice and a great deal of experience was to play on the Big Stage before the Dignitary. On that day, it shared the enormous stage with all the members of its immediate family, strangers and complete aliens as it were from outer space and the stunner was that when they all gave their music, it was one sound.

Obviously, we Christians are like the violin thinking that our individual revelations are the correct ones but with increasing experience we learn that we are all saying the same thing because we share the same Name.

On that note, I welcome you to this discourse on the Covenants. My desire, pleasure, honor and sole responsibility is to give what I have been given. Nobody is compelled to accept it. I belong to one camp alone and it is that of the Christ of God, the Man Jesus of Nazareth. If you disagree with me, it is well. If you don't, it is well. Where you offer concerns and questions for clarification, I will do my best to explain. But I will not be arguing here as I would normally do. If I engage anyone, I may do no more than ask questions and point out things I think they have not paid attention to as I would hope they would feel free to do with me as well.

Well then, enjoy.

TBC

Let's talk a little about the Old Covenant, shall we?

It's sometimes called "the Law of Moses". Sometimes it is merely called Moses. But what in fact is it?

No, it is not the Ten Commandments or the numerous requirements drawn from them and all manner of regulations and things. A covenant is a contract. A law is a demand. In a covenant, demands are made in return for which some benefit is offered. Thus, a covenant can be built around a demand and still not itself be the demand that is made such that the cancelling of the contract may not eliminate the demand. More of this a little later though.

Our God is not one of confusion. His Ways are definite. There are things that He wants and things that He doesn't, things that suit Him and things that do not. He is known for His Purposes. He always has some objective for which He does things. Therefore, He had an objective for creating man.

Because of His Reason or Purpose for creating man, He has expectations of him. These expectations are the demands that He makes of Him.

When did God first make a demand of man? When He created him. Some of what He said at that time is called blessing, viz., that man should be fruitful and multiply and have dominion over all of the physical creation, however, He also told him in no uncertain terms that he should abstain from eating from a particular tree in the Garden or else he would die. Not counting the blessing (which can also be defined as a demand), this was God's first law to man.

Now, I'm sure that we can see that there is no contract or covenant surrounding this law. God did not say to Adam, "if you obey me and do not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, I will do such and such for you in return. But, if you do not, I will do such and such against you instead."

His warning of the consequences of disobedience do not fit the provisions of a contract. It was more the clarification of the power in the edict of a King.

TBC

Great post! This promises to be enlightening and interesting.

*Sits down*.

1. The debate has been btw those who think that the Laws of Moses still apply to Christians today and those who say it does not: ie, those who say the law to follow today is the Law of Spirit and Life; not just those who say there is law and those who Say there is no law. The difference has been in what the law really is.

2. The analogy regarding music is wonderful and I agree that little point of differences are not worth pursuing; but if U are out to play music on stage and the other fellows wish to play baseball, will there not be some conflict? Paul commands Timothy to take heed to his doctrine for by it he would both save himself and his hearers. Some teachings, no matter how Christian, will damn a listener. These are the reason for our contention, Jude 3.

Nonetheless the thread is a welcome development and I, like U, wish that most discuss will be civil and edifying.

So, we have seen a law without a covenant. That is to help us get things in perspective.

Now, later on, God chose a people among the peoples of the earth, another thing that He did with purpose. According to the Scriptures, He gave His Laws to these people. Also, according to the Scriptures, He bound these people to Himself by a covenant.

So, there is a covenant and there are laws. Now God is eternal, so it follows that His Laws should be too for that which is eternal does not change and God Himself declared that He does not change. If He did change, then what He wants and demands would too. And they couldn't change without Him.

However, what about a covenant that God enters into with creatures? Obviously, contracts gain their permanence or impermanence, or strength or weakness from the abilities of the parties on whom it is built.

Now, Moses received God's Laws or Demands or Requirements which he tendered to the children of Israel as what God wanted from them in return for which He would do a variety of things for them.

Moses's law was this: you will do such and such in order that God may do such and such. That was the Covenant.

Many times, while offering or reminding the Israelites of this law, Moses and eventually other mediators would reiterate that they'd break the covenant. Because they would, the covenant provided rituals that were ways of making restitution and returning to the initial unbroken state allowing God to continue being favorable toward them.

But it was clear that God's demands were impossible for the Jews or anyone else to keep.

TBC

The provisions of this Old Covenant were rife with physical rituals which God told Moses to institute after something He had shown him.

An instance was the Sanctuary with its elaborate rituals and ceremony and arrangements and offices. God demanded that Moses be very precise in copying the particular pattern He had shown him in their communions.

We know that God later explained that He did not live in houses or shelters made by human hands. He said this through His friends the prophets, why then did He ask for a Sanctuary with such attention to details and offices and whatnot? Moses himself pointed to a future that would explain why.

What we do know is that God made very precise demands and made provisions for the eventual failure on the part of the other party. But the rituals and offices and systems were His demand.

Now, this covenant was made with the Hebrews but God made as crystal as possible that He meant for it to apply to all men. Circumcision was an initiation into the commonwealth of the Jews available to everyone except some who are pointed out in Deuteronomy 23.

So, was it Jewish law? Yes. Were all men then called to be with God as the Jews were? Obviously. So it was a covenant that God was offering to everyone reaching for Him.

TBC

However, as Moses did, and Jesus too later witnessed, the parties with whom God was entering into the covenant were stiffnecked. And that meant that Moses had to make some "compromises" as it were.

An example is the divorce issue. Jesus did not as much correct Moses as explain him when He said that God did not approve of divorce except for reasons of adultery. This is to explain that in the Old Covenant, allowances were made for the native disposition of the human party to God's Demands.

In summary then, the Old Covenant was a contract that God entered into with man (represented by Israel) that obligated man to meet God's requirements in exchange for His beneficence, His Sustenance. This Covenant allowed for man's native inability to appreciate spiritual realities and his poor disposition to God's Demands (both of which resulted from Adam's sin).

Next, we'll examine the New Covenant.

TBC

The Old Covenant was offered by God for a reason. As we have said, God always has a reason to do everything that He does. He is as truly a God of Purpose as could be. We are told that His reason was to expose man's weakness - his sin, his failure and inability to do good.

That means that He knew that to make men good, the time would come when something more would have to be done. He'd been speaking of it and alluding to it right from Eden. Someone was going to come and He would make everything right. Moses too spoke of a Prophet Who was to come after and replace him. Many prophets who arose after Moses kept speaking of this Someone with Whom the hope of man was bound up.

In addition to what they said, there were many indications and outright declarations that the covenant would be annulled and a new one made. This new one was going to be eternal and it would fix everything - it would not only show man what is good and what is evil and the consequences of either as the Old did, but it would actually make every human being who subscribed to it GOOD.

It was something on the level of incredible. In fact, we're told that these friends of God's who were told by Him about it longed and desired to see it for themselves but they could not. That there was some way that man could be freed eternally from evil and able to reach for all the wonderful things God had created him for was...how in the world could one express the wonder of it after having lived under the Old Covenant? Simply incredulous! Only God could do it and how He would was inconceivable, incomprehensible to the prophet who only knew the Old Covenant. But God said that He was going to do it.

TBC

Now, if the goal of the New Covenant was to make man good, it would no longer have to accommodate man's native disposition to evil and his weakness, would it? Obviously not. Again, because it was going to make man good, it was going to define good (that is, God's Laws) and thus evil like the Old Covenant did.

The Old Covenant was mediated by Moses the friend of God. And it wasn't the Covenant, there was another, the better, which was to come. That one had to mediated by someone in a better position than Moses was. Scriptures reveal that one to have been the Someone that had been the Subject of all the prophecy and hope and instruction beginning from Eden.

What was the New Covenant? Who were the parties? What were the benefits being offered and what requirements were demanded?

The parties, like before, were man (again beginning with Israel) and God. However, the demands were different than before. There was only one: the man was to believe on and entrust himself to God and in return God would make him able to meet His Demands.

But then how is God's offer to make man able to meet His Demands recognizable as a benefit to man? By reference to the Old Covenant where His Demands are shown to come packaged with benefits.

Ok then. But how was He going to do it? God said that He was going to put His Own Spirit (that is, Himself) inside the man, which is the same as saying that He would put His demands inside the man, so that the man would find himself wanting to do them, rather than feeling obliged to them and being at war with them all the time because his own desires were different.

In other words, the New Covenant was going to bias things in favor of man. It would make things such that man would only be exposed to the benefits of obedience to God's demands by making him naturally obedient to them and free of all the negatives by making him naturally opposed to them.

At this point, we will go a little into the play-out of the things we have just said.

TBC

Registering myself for this course.

Jesus came as the Second Man and the Last Adam. That means that He came to end the first order of things that obtained as a result of the first man's failure and start a new order.

As the Scriptures say, we were all born into Adam's failure such that holiness is impossible to us. To do good is an impossibility to Adam's race. Even the "good" things we clap ourselves on the back for are tainted by hidden unclean desires.

The Old Covenant focused a great deal on the physical because man was incapable of dealing with spiritial realities. God therefore translated spiritual realities into physical symbols that were teachings about the deeper, hidden spiritual realities.

This meant that men whose hearts were not truly seeking God could easily harden the symbols into ends in themselves and end up eclipsing the powerful spiritual realities. As a result, such men would neither recognize the Messiah Who was the full meaning of all the symbols when He came nor would they appreciate His Work of bringing to light the real meaning of the symbols. To them He would be a heretic and an apostate.

Also because the symbols were illustrations of the deeper spiritual realities, this Messiah was going to speak of them and use them to teach about said spiritual realities. So they maintain relevance to Him.

Now, after His teaching and explanation and all, Jesus Christ went to the Cross. Before He did, He said something very important: that unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone, but when it does, it brings forth much fruit.

TBC

Scriptures say that He said that about the Death He was going to die. In another place, He said that He had a baptism to be baptized with and that He was "straitened", that is to say, "restrained", "held back", "narrowed" until He had been baptized with it. Again, He was speaking of His Death.

When Jesus died, He sowed His Life like the grain of wheat that He spoke of and when He resurrected He brought us and all who are yet to be saved into being as God's New Creation. He scattered His Life which had proved incorruptible by the powers of Hell unlike Adam's into every man and woman that believe in Him. This Life is the New Nature that the New Covenant was promising to all who subscribed to it.

This New Nature comes with desires and power to fulfill God's demands which are made known under the Old Covenant. So, everyone who receives It finds themselves wanting to do good and increasingly growing intolerant of evil. Such people also find that they have the enablement to see the spiritual realities and eternal principles hidden within the symbols and the rituals of the Old Covenant. They get beyond the shell to the meat of the matter.

It is of them that Jesus spoke saying that a good scribe schooled in the Kingdom would be able to bring out of his treasures things new and old. They find that the beautiful and imposing physical structure called the Temple and which housed the holy things was actually a parable for the body of people who believe in the Lord Jesus, for instance; that the people of the physical nation Israel was actually a metaphor for the people called out from every nation to follow Christ; that the Sabbath was a metaphor for Christ Himself and that it meant that our whole life should be lived in Rest not strain - this was why Christians began to meet on the first, rather than the last, day of the week after Jesus rose from the Dead; that tithing is a statement of gratitude for God's Bounty toward us which we make without compulsion etc etc.

These people understand spiritual realities because they have become spiritual people. To them Moses is a parable. To others, Moses is the meaning, the end in itself. So, while others stumble all over Moses, they themselves ride on it into the deep things of God.

TBC

In conclusion, there are two Covenants, one of which has been made obsolete, the other of which has replaced it and is eternal.

But per the controversy that has been raging for years about the Law and Grace, God's Demands have never changed. What He wants of man has not wavered from the first Covenant to the Second. His Principles are eternal. However, His "offer", if you will, changed (after all, that part depended on us, so it was changeable). In the first He offered benefits for obedience, in the Second, He offered Substitution for Trust or Faith. The Second, however, encompassed the First, that is, it took what the First offered and improved upon it so that the First is no longer necessary.

Now, indeed, the Law has passed away, there are no obligations for the believer now because he has righteous desires that govern his behavior. However, it is reality that sometimes believers still sin, what then?

In that situation, says John in his first epistle, we have an Advocate. Now would we need an Advocate if there were no case to answer at all? Obviously not. That means that when we sin, there is accusation that we come under and a penalty to face. These are described in the first Covenant. But in the second, not only are the blessings richer and more stupendous, the condemnation is by far more grievous. As the writer to the Hebrews said, he that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of Grace? That only means that the person stoned to death for adultery under the Old Covenant faired a lot better than the one who looks upon a woman with lust in his heart under the New.

Anyone who understands the implication of covenants, contracts or treaties and the things done to make them possible would understand that where benefits abound, the sacrifices that make them possible are greater and the penalties for default are steeper. Thus any person thinking of getting away with defaulting would fare better running back to Moses. In Christ, you're better off staying clean as a whistle. And what's more, it's far easier in Christ to stay so.

So, believers can default (by unbelief which results in sinful actions, words and imaginations) and when they do, the spiritual "version" of Moses' penalties for default weigh in, but as it is said, we have an Advocate! HALLELUYAH! And because we do, we have a chance of escape. Immediately we repent, there is forgiveness, cleansing, restoration and a removal of the recompense. It doesn't matter how far gone we are. Immediately we lift our eyes up to the Cross, we are raised up from under the heel of the Law.

So, the regime of external rituals and ceremony may have passed, but this is because the Real Deal has come in. And in it there are still rituals: we still assemble together, keep feasts and celebrations, pray, fast etc. There are still offices: we still have a Priesthood with a hierarchy, we have apostles, prophets, teachers, pastors and evangelists. We have responsibilities too: to one another, to our families and spouses, to the world without or outside, the carnal authorities, that is, the world's governments, to those who minister to us in spiritual things in the office of spiritual Levites, to the poor. But some things have ended.

The things associated with failure, with default, with the flesh have been put away by that One Sacrifice that accounted for them all. No more sacrifices need be made, no sin offerings etc etc. We are now free to live in the positives. And should we ever fall into iniquity, the Blood of this Sacrifice is so powerful that it need not be poured forth a second time to atone for the fallen.

TBC

Brothers and sisters, I tell you the truth when I say that what there is to be said in explanation of this matter is a bookfull at least. This is why I have been quite reticent about writing it.

But I have tried to capture enormous matters in as few words as possible. However, where there is need for expansion and clarification, I will gladly expand and clarify if the need is expressed.

The Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirits. Amen.

Nice thread (purpose). While we are learning about our difference,let us be fair and civil,not forming self assurance of our own view only for the true ones will still come together in the unity of faith...(Eph 4:13)

@Ihedinobi
The ship wreck is a good analogy too back up your point also *the held on to different parts of the ship but they were all saved* (acts 27:41-44).

*still waiting on more posts)

anukulapo: The ship wreck is a good analogy too back up your point also *the held on to different parts of the ship but they were all saved* (acts 27:41-44).

Lovely, bro/sis. That was a great analogy in the Scriptures too. The Holy Spirit is so wise!

@DrummaBoy

You are free to define the camps how you want. There is a proverb about giving a dog a bad name so you can hang it. We humans are adept at things like that. Many times we do it before we have been able to think about what we're doing.

About the other matter, Romans 14:1-15:7 would make rather good reading for you. Note particularly verse 4 of Romans 14.

Bro, as good as this writeup is, it lacks substance. You have not rightly divided the word of God, as some of your inferences are not scriptural. I believe you are being logical thus you compromise. But the bible is clear on what is expected of us- adding yeast to the bread (word) is not allowed.

^^ I was neither asking for nor expecting anybody's approval or endorsement. I'm open to criticism and rather uncaring about applause or the lack of it.

Useful criticism here would've been

- pointing out what it means to rightly divide the Word of God and how I have failed to do so

- pointing out which of my inferences are unscriptural and how they contradict or fail to uphold or to be upheld by the Scriptures

- explaining what you mean by "being logical" and "compromise" and what's wrong with either and showing how I, by being logical, compromise

- explaining what you mean by adding yeast to bread, why it is wrong and where I have done so.

It's not for nothing, you know, that Scriptures warn that those who aspire to be teachers risk greater condemnation.

@Ihedinobi,
Well thought out and beautifully written.
As noted I can see you tried to explain without really stating the scriptures but those learned and schooled in the Holy Spirit will know where to look in the Word.
Weldone and God bless. you.

Wow! I respect your humility and maturity as shown through your response. My above submission was not directed at your person but at the post, I believe you understand that.

Let us start with the 2nd paragraph..

Ihedinobi: Jesus said that in His Father's House there are many mansions. One thing that can tell us Christians is that there is enough space within God to accommodate our "differences". We can all be Christians and differ on the meaning of Christ in particular situations. The only thing that Christians do not differ on is Who Jesus Christ is. How He could be that Person may vary in theory from one Christian to another but that Jesus Christ is God come in the flesh to redeem us from the Fall and unto Himself is non-negotiable. It is the bedrock of our confession. But we may vary in how that could be or in how it affects the particulars of our lives. That is because we are each a unique entity and in a unique set of circumstances. Thus, we need not go to war over what angle at which to hold the communal spoon when we eat the communal meal.

We can afford to be different. We can afford to have different experiences and be at different stages of development. There is no need to fight over these. All we need to do is hold fast our confession - that because the Lord Himself came to save us from our rebellion with the pouring out of His Holy Blood we have been saved indeed. This is what makes us one, one Family, one Body, one Priesthood, one Royalty. Let us not allow the enemy to tear us apart because we hold different pieces of the "puzzle" or revelation of Christ, for it is all one Revelation, one Christ.

TBC

How does many mansions in the above mean we can accommodate different gospels as part of the good news? Please explain that part then we can go on.

following quietly

@shdemidemi

I am sure it does not mean that at all. As I said, there is only one Gospel: that Christ Jesus is God come in the flesh to save us from our sin to Himself.

Alwaystrue: @Ihedinobi,
Well thought out and beautifully written.
As noted I can see you tried to explain without really stating the scriptures but those learned and schooled in the Holy Spirit will know where to look in the Word.
Weldone and God bless. you.

Thank you, sister dear. I find it very difficult to maintain flow while having to quote Scripture directly. Plus I have a practice to excite curiosity and a desire to see for oneself if what is said is true. So, when I write as I do, I hope to kickstart my reader's thought processes so that he goes to search the Scriptures for himself.

Also, I cite Scriptures mostly when I'm sealing up a matter and making it unquestionable. I would rather let growing ones ease into the Truth and allow myself to be questioned most times. So more often than not, I write and talk as I have written here.

But I am aware that there are such as are not very conversant with the Scripturesand would be hard-pressed to find some of the things I say in writings like this. For their sake, I am learning to include Scriptures more and more in what I say. Here, however, I expect such to ask for where the Scriptures say things I said which they did not hitherto know.

The Lord bless you too, sister dear.

Mr anony: following quietly

Thrilled to see you here, twin bro.

Ihedinobi: @shdemidemi

I am sure it does not mean that at all. As I said, there is only one Gospel: that Christ Jesus is God come in the flesh to save us from our sin to Himself.

Ihedinobi: Jesus said that in His Father's House there are many mansions. One thing that can tell us Christians is that there is enough space within God to accommodate our "differences". We can all be Christians and differ on the meaning of Christ in particular situations. The only thing that Christians do not differ on is Who Jesus Christ is. How He could be that Person may vary in theory from one Christian to another but that Jesus Christ is God come in the flesh to redeem us from the Fall and unto Himself is non-negotiable. It is the bedrock of our confession. But we may vary in how that could be or in how it affects the particulars of our lives. That is because we are each a unique entity and in a unique set of circumstances. Thus, we need not go to war over what angle at which to hold the communal spoon when we eat the communal meal.TBC

I believe the gospel to gentiles is one, therefore, if two Christians don't agree on an issue,one of them(if not both) is definitely wrong.
Although you accept there is one gospel, but you also accept differences within this same gospel. I believe accepting these differences is totally wrong and unacceptable.

The gospel to Christians is simple and direct, It is the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. We can draw doctrines of condemnation, election, justification purification, imputation and more from this gospel. All these doctrines can only mean one thing to anyone. Arguments and differences come when the truth is not preached.

In the first He offered benefits for obedience, in the Second, He offered Substitution for Trust or Faith. The Second, however, encompassed the First, that is, it took what the First offered and improved upon it so that the First is no longer necessary.

The Second encompasses the First only in its intent, not its content. This is a very important distinction to make. The Second achieves what the intent behind the First, but which the First - being only a foreshadow/temporary guardian could not achieve and that's where the focus should be.

The misconception of many is that the First was 'perfect' and conformance with the Second implies conformance with all the requirements of the first. This is clearly not so.

Edited.

Following....

@Ihedinobi,
Amen. Very true. Paul did lots of that and used the scripture (either the law or his knowledge of Christ's walk on earth)to seal what He was saying. You are doing great. The words are very gentle as well. Learning....

Ihedinobi:
Now, this covenant was made with the Hebrews but God made as crystal as possible that He meant for it to apply to all men.

You stated somewhere you willing to provide clarification if needed. so i need clarification here. when you say God meant it to apply to all men, i assume you refer to the written law. are you saying it was meant for all men at the time the covenant was made i.e. including non jews. or was it to become applicable to all men after Christ? thanks in advance.

DAYUMMM IHEDINOBI BRINGING IN HERESIES LIKE THE REPROBATE HE IS I THINK YOU ARE CONFUSING A TESTAMENT AND A COVENANT. WHILE THERE ARE TWO TESTAMENTS IN THE BIBLE ( WHICH A TESTAMENT IS A WRITTEN DOCUMENT ), HOWEVER THERE IS ONLY ONE COVENANT THAT APPLIES TO MAN ON THIS SIDE OF HEAVEN. AND THAT COVENANT IS THE LAWS WE ARE BOUND TO. THE NEW COVENANT TAKES PLACE IN THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, WHICH WE ARE NOT CURRENTLY IN, SO YOU ARE BRINGING IN HERESIES. WHAT IS THE NEW COVENANT ? THE LAWS WILL BE WRITTEN IN THE INWARD PARTS OF THOSE WHO MAKE IT <<< THATS THE NEW COVENANT. ANOTHER WAY OF SAYING IT IS THAT CORRUPTION WILL INHERIT INCORRUPTION <<<< NEW COVENANT. ANOTHER WAY OF SAYING IT IS THAT TERRESTRIAL BODIES BECOME CELESTIAL BODIES <<<< NEW COVENANT . AND I REPEAT YOU ARE CONFUSING TESTAMENT WITH COVENANT. THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT THANGS SMDH

Alwaystrue: @Ihedinobi,
Amen. Very true. Paul did lots of that and used the scripture (either the law or his knowledge of Christ's walk on earth)to seal what He was saying. You are doing great. The words are very gentle as well. Learning....

Paul would never use the law to affirm any spiritual revelation as regards the gospel of Christ like you said. The law and the gospel of Christ are at different levels of propagation.

I believe we should allow the OP time to answer questions one after the other for everyone's edification, instead of bombarding him with questions that would prove burdensome.

obadiah777: DAYUMMM IHEDINOBI BRINGING IN HERESIES LIKE THE REPROBATE HE IS I THINK YOU ARE CONFUSING A TESTAMENT AND A COVENANT. WHILE THERE ARE TWO TESTAMENTS IN THE BIBLE ( WHICH A TESTAMENT IS A WRITTEN DOCUMENT ), HOWEVER THERE IS ONLY ONE COVENANT THAT APPLIES TO MAN ON THIS SIDE OF HEAVEN. AND THAT COVENANT IS THE LAWS WE ARE BOUND TO. THE NEW COVENANT TAKES PLACE IN THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, WHICH WE ARE NOT CURRENTLY IN, SO YOU ARE BRINGING IN HERESIES. WHAT IS THE NEW COVENANT ? THE LAWS WILL BE WRITTEN IN THE INWARD PARTS OF THOSE WHO MAKE IT <<< THATS THE NEW COVENANT. ANOTHER WAY OF SAYING IT IS THAT CORRUPTION WILL INHERIT INCORRUPTION <<<< NEW COVENANT. ANOTHER WAY OF SAYING IT IS THAT TERRESTRIAL BODIES BECOME CELESTIAL BODIES <<<< NEW COVENANT . AND I REPEAT YOU ARE CONFUSING TESTAMENT WITH COVENANT. THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT THANGS SMDH

Pot calling kettle black.