Alot of times, when we say "in the old Testament,..." people tend to shift their minds towards the books of Genesis to Malachi, or the laws of Moses.

But in reality, the old Testament was between GENESIS till the death of Jesus. Jesus functioned under the old Testament, and He really couldn't teach new revelations, because the folks of then could not receive it, because they had not the Spirit.

The disciples knew Jesus by the flesh. They didn't know Him by the Spirit, for to them, He was to them a great Jewish teacher. Peter however said something by the Spirit, but he didn't really understand what he said. No wonder, after Jesus died, they all went to their different occupations, even though Jesus told them He'd be back again. They did not understand all those

The New Testament began at the resurrection, after the death of Jesus. For the Bible declared in the ninth chapter of the book of Hebrews

16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

The new testament therefore began with the Acts of the Apostles. Is the old Testament book then ineffective and useless? Nay, the old Testament is for us to learn from (Romans 15:4), not to live by. We will never enjoy Christianity by living by the old Testament.

Understand that the new Testament speaks better things than the old, and in Christ, we are of the new Testament, meaning, the moment we got born again, the old man died... With Jesus on the cross. God gave us a brand new Spirit, one that's never existed before. A perfect spirit with no form of evil or blemish. The old man was not 'renovated' or 'refurbished '... Unfortunately, our minds corrupts our brand new Spirits, that's why Bible asked us to renew our minds, by the word.

God bless you all.

Its actually Hebrew and Greek scriptures.
Hebrew scriptures ended with malachi and the Greek scriptures started with Mathew based on the language of writing.

feldido:
Its actually Hebrew and Greek scriptures.
Hebrew scriptures ended with malachi and the Greek scriptures started with Mathew based on the language of writing.

You're right, I was just trying to point out where the testaments ended and began, not necessarily the writings.

Old and new testament distinguished two groups of script writers, medieval middle eastern desert dwellers and Mediterranean tribe in Europe who took part in shaping two mythical and legendary believes system (Judaism and Christianity).

Therefore it ends where they said it ended. They are the writers not you.

menesheh:
Old and new testament distinguished two script writers, medieval middle eastern desert dwellers and Mediterranean tribe in Europe who took part in shaping two mythical and legendary believes system (Judaism and Christianity).

Therefore it ends where they said it ended. They are the writers not you.

What's a testament?

Gombs:


What's a testament?

i don't know


but i know of old testament and new testament

menesheh:

i don't know

i thought so too.. now, visit www.google.com for more details.

but i know of old testament and new testament

You don't, buddy!

Gombs:


i thought so too.. now, visit www.google.com for more details.



You don't, buddy!

i didn't get your point here

you asked me a question, i answered you. i was expecting your reasons for the question, then you are here telling me to visit a site. whats that suppose to mean?

You don't, buddy!

whats that suppose to mean? that i no longer know what i know?

menesheh:


i didn't get your point here

you asked me a question, i answered you. i was expecting your reasons for the question, then you are here telling me to visit a site. whats that suppose to mean?



whats that suppose to mean? that i no longer know what i know?

Google search will explain better for you, hence the referral.

bro u are right. but who put tthese books presently called the bible together. how was it agreed. becos i have seen some bibles with some books like sirachi etcm

etc not etcm

tuscani:
bro u are right. but who put tthese books presently called the bible together. how was it agreed. becos i have seen some bibles with some books like sirachi etcm

Men and women who were moved to do so. Understand that some of the translators were however not born again, but they did a great job.

Gombs:


The new testament therefore began with the Acts of the Apostles. Is the old Testament book then ineffective and useless? Nay, the old Testament is for us to learn from (Romans 15:4), not to live by. We will never enjoy Christianity by living by the old Testament.

I agree with everything taught here. However, let's us get something straight! If the old testament is for our learning and not for our living-it-out, I completely agree also but question:

1 - How should Christians learn exactly from the old if we're not suppose to live by what we learn from the old?

2 - What should Christians do with lessons of old when it is no longer valid on this side of the cross; that is, issues of the old that doesn't balance out with Christ's teachings and His finished works

I will like us to address these issues for\with Christians in this thread

Goshen360:

I agree with everything taught here. However, let's us get something straight! If the old testament is for our learning and not for our living-it-out, I completely agree also but question:

Hello Goshen, being a while! Good to have you around.

1 - How should Christians learn exactly from the old if we're not suppose to live by what we learn from the old?

Let's look at what Paul wrote us in his letter to the Romans, chapter 15 and verse 4

For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

The message translation renders it thus...

Even if it was written in Scripture long ago, you can be sure it's written for us. God wants the combination of his steady, constant calling and warm, personal counsel in Scripture to come to characterize us, keeping us alert for whatever he will do next.

It's clear as the noonday sun that God kept those records for us, to learn from the mistakes of others, to learn of his dealings with men of old... So that we will be in line with his workings.

For example, idolatry.
God shows us how nations were wiped for idolatry, how suffering and poverty were brought upon cities... How kings deviated from a course he set for them, because of idolatry. He shows us their end, and the lessons worthy of note.

*I didn't choose tithing as an example, so that we can have a smooth going thread. Thanks

2 - What should Christians do with lessons of old when it is no longer valid on this side of the cross; that is, issues of the old that doesn't balance out with Christ's teachings and His finished works

The lessons has a lot to guide us from... Take for example,Folks in the new testament read of these books and learnt lessons (notice the Plural) from it...

Jude 9 KJV
Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.

Looks to me like someone learnt a lesson from the folks of old..don't you think so?

Hebrews 11 shows us our heroes of faith... It's there for us to learn... James told us about Elijah... Peter told us about prophets of old and how they sought a glimpse of our salvation.. Faith, was taught by Paul of Abraham... Esau's blunder was taught us to learn from... So on and so much to learn.

Giving was taught to churches by Paul, from the old testament folks... Etc

I will like us to address these issues for\with Christians in this thread

You're in good hand then!

Gombs:
Alot of times, when we say "in the old Testament,..." people tend to shift their minds towards the books
The new testament therefore began with the Acts of the Apostles. Is the old Testament book then ineffective and useless? Nay, the old Testament is for us to learn from (Romans 15:4), not to live by. We will never enjoy Christianity by living by the old Testament.

I disagree with this cut-off point. Jesus' teachings in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are for us to live by, not just to learn from. We cannot discard those as only for us to learn from.

Gombs:
A lot of times, when we say "in the old Testament,..." people tend to shift their minds towards the books of Genesis to Malachi, or the laws of Moses.

But in reality, the old Testament was between GENESIS till the death of Jesus.
Jesus functioned under the old Testament, and He really couldn't teach new revelations, because the folks of then could not receive it, because they had not the Spirit.

The disciples knew Jesus by the flesh. They didn't know Him by the Spirit, for to them, He was to them a great Jewish teacher. Peter however said something by the Spirit, but he didn't really understand what he said. No wonder, after Jesus died, they all went to their different occupations, even though Jesus told them He'd be back again. They did not understand all those

The New Testament began at the resurrection, after the death of Jesus. For the Bible declared in the ninth chapter of the book of Hebrews

16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

The new testament therefore began with the Acts of the Apostles. Is the old Testament book then ineffective and useless?
Nay, the old Testament is for us to learn from (Romans 15:4), not to live by.
We will never enjoy Christianity by living by the old Testament.

God bless you all

Kenny4lyfe goshen360 debosky
Interesting that, as it was then, so it still is today
Yes, Jesus functioned under the old Testament, and He really couldn't teach new revelations,
because the folks of then could not receive it,
because they had not the Spirit to KNOW THAT the old Testament is for us to learn from (Romans 15:4), and not to live by.
We will never enjoy Christianity by living by the old Testament, especially not by living by old Testament TITHING

As the new revelations teaches that, we ought to live by His grace and cheerful giving,
and not by an old Testament TITHING coercion, compulsion, arm-twisting or pressure

Lets not go into the nitty gritty differences and similarities between ''covenant'' and ''testament''
Question is, is TITHING in this new will?
What exactly are the others things in this will that took effect after Jesus Christ shed His blood and died?
What exactly are they, especially if agreeing with you that the new testament therefore began with the Acts of the Apostles?
TITHING de facto, is it in this new will?

All Jesus' teachings did not end with the Old Testament else why would He have said:

Why do you call Me, Lord, Lord, and do not [practice] what I tell you?
Luke 6:46

26 And everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not do them will be like a stupid (foolish) man who built his house upon the sand.
Matthew 7:26

20 Teaching them to observe everything that I have commanded you, and behold, I am with you [c]all the days ([d]perpetually, uniformly, and on every occasion), to the [very] close and consummation of the age. [e]Amen (so let it be)
Matthew 28:20

So Jesus said to those Jews who had believed in Him, If you abide in My word [hold fast to My teachings and live in accordance with them], you are truly My disciples.
John 8:31

Having settled that, the law (being part of the Old Testament) and its shadows and types were fulfilled when Jesus died and the veil of the Temple was rent. The NT was wrapped up in the Old and could only commence after the conditions of the latter had been fulfilled not just in type but in Substance.

Gombs:


i thought so too.. now, visit www.google.com for more details.



You don't, buddy!

smart guy. for your mind you smart abi.


just review my chat with you and was laughing like a mad person.

MuttleyLaff:
Kenny4lyfe goshen360 debosky
Interesting that, as it was then, so it still is today
Yes, Jesus functioned under the old Testament, and He really couldn't teach new revelations,
because the folks of then could not receive it,
because they had not the Spirit to KNOW THAT the old Testament is for us to learn from (Romans 15:4), and not to live by.
We will never enjoy Christianity by living by the old Testament, especially not by living by old Testament TITHING

As the new revelations teaches that, we ought to live by His grace and cheerful giving,
and not by an old Testament TITHING coercion, compulsion, arm-twisting or pressure

Lets not go into the nitty gritty differences and similarities between ''covenant'' and ''testament''
Question is, is TITHING in this new will?
What exactly are the others things in this will that took effect after Jesus Christ shed His blood and died?
What exactly are they, especially if agreeing with you that the new testament therefore began with the Acts of the Apostles?
TITHING de facto, is it in this new will?

I really do not appreciate redundancy, but... Let me just indulge you with one question.

Was Abraham under the old covenant?

A Yes or No would be just fine.

debosky:


I disagree with this cut-off point. Jesus' teachings in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are for us to live by, not just to learn from. We cannot discard those as only for us to learn from.

Read through, Son!... But, a quick quiz now, shall we?

Q1. When does a testament take effect?

A. Before the death of the testator.

B. During the lifetime of the testator.

C. After the death of the testator.

Q2. Could Jesus teach any new revelation in His lifetime? If yes, kindly list any two.

(i)...........................................................................................

(ii)..........................................................................................


Best wishes.

MuttleyLaff:
Kenny4lyfe goshen360 debosky
Interesting that, as it was then, so it still is today
Yes, Jesus functioned under the old Testament, and He really couldn't teach new revelations,
because the folks of then could not receive it,
because they had not the Spirit to KNOW THAT the old Testament is for us to learn from (Romans 15:4), and not to live by.

Jesus couldn't teach new revelations?

You might ad well give up now.

debosky:


Jesus couldn't teach new revelations?

You might ad well give up now.

Answer the quiz set out to you... Here's a lifeline... I can fully understand, if you can't.

Gombs:
I really do not appreciate redundancy, but... Let me just indulge you with one question.

Was Abraham under the old covenant?

A Yes or No would be just fine.

You've definitely noticed I have parroted your post to show how ludicrously it is.

Noticed I didn't want to go into the similarities between covenant and testament (i.e. will) and where their differences begins to set them apart.

Abraham was under the Abrahamic covenant when God took hold of his thing to show me who really owns it.
Though it was bloody, no one had to die or died before benefiting from it.

Of course, Abraham saw into the future the new testament - it's promises and benefits

debosky:
Jesus couldn't teach new revelations?

You might ad well give up now.

Refer this to the original post authored by its owner not me please

Gombs:


Read through, Son!... But, a quick quiz now, shall we?

Q1. When does a testament take effect?

A. Before the death of the testator.

B. During the lifetime of the testator.

C. After the death of the testator.

After the death, if we are talking about a last will and testament. However your treatment of testament in this context is flawed - who died for the old testament to come into force?

Q2. Could Jesus teach any new revelation in His lifetime? If yes, kindly list any two.

(i)...........................................................................................

(ii)..........................................................................................

I'll give you a chapter of them - go and read Matthew 5 for starters.

Gombs:


But in reality, the old Testament was between GENESIS till the death of Jesus. Jesus functioned under the old Testament, and He really couldn't teach new revelations, because the folks of then could not receive it, because they had not the Spirit.

The latest iteration of Oyaks garbage.
Tell me one 'new revelation' that you have received by the Spirit that pre-Calvary saints couldn't receive

Gombs:
Read through, Son!... But, a quick quiz now, shall we?

Q1. When does a testament take effect?

A. Before the death of the testator.

B. During the lifetime of the testator.

C. After the death of the testator.

Best wishes.

debosky:
After the death, if we are talking about a last will and testament.
However your treatment of testament in this context is flawed - who died for the old testament to come into force?

I wonder what prompted me posting:
Lets not go into the nitty gritty differences and similarities between ''covenant'' and ''testament'' ...

[quote author=debosky post=37842460]

After the death,

Good. I believe you know what book comes after the death of Jesus.

*turns to the judge and jury...

No further questions my lord.

who died for the old testament to come into force?

I knew you'd chip this in. Since we're in a class/courtroom, let me school you.

Jesus Christ is that single person upon which the entire Old Testament is based.

God's agreement (covenant) with the Hebrews (Exodus 19 through to chapter 24 ) under Mosaic Law all hinged upon the coming Messiah. (no need to prove this for you )

The Old Testament covenant was very much like a personal living will, which only became effective when Christ died and full payment was made for man's sins. You need proof, shey? You remember that folks in Abraham's bosom got their flight tickets after Jesus' death, don't you?
(I wish you can understand these. That's why you've got to understand what the man Jesus did)

Oh... Here is a clue. The PASSOVER LAMB Became The LAMB OF God. Hallelujah.

As to your question of who died for the OT to come into force.. I really laughed. It shows how little you know your bible.

I told you the OT was more of a personal living will, but if you've read your bible well, you'd have read, that BOTH the Old and New Testaments absolutely required BLOOD to be effective.

Surely, Hebrews 9:22 tells us that WITHOUT THE SHEDDING OF BLOOD THERE IS NO REMISSION OF SINS!!!

The prophesied PASSOVER LAMB of the Old Testament became the sacrificed LAMB OF GOD in the New Testament. (glory to God... Wow!)


The Old Covenant lays the foundation for the coming Messiah Who sacrificed Himself on the cross for the sins of the whole world in the New Testament (1st John 2:2).

I'll give you a chapter of them - go and read Matthew 5 for starters.

Ah, you didn't disappoint.

It's a shame you can't type down any. God bless you, Son!

MuttleyLaff:


I wonder what prompted me posting:
Lets not go into the nitty gritty differences and similarities between ''covenant'' and ''testament'' ...

Please explain the differences between Covenant and Testament.
As for the thread, New Testament started from the Day Jesus had the last supper (Covenant ceremony) with His disciples. His death on the cross marked the end of the OT. We must understand that OT started with Abraham with Genesis 15 s a family and re - enacted with the nation of Israel in Exodus 24. Again on the day of Passover in Jesus time.

MightySparrow:
Please explain the differences between Covenant and Testament.

Primary similarity between Covenant and Testament #1, is that, they both fundamentally are agreements,
however with covenant, sometimes it can be a one sided agreement, other times its an all party involved mutual agreement

Primary difference between Covenant and Testament #1, is that, covenant takes effect immediately after an oath
which usually or at times, involves blood shedding of some sort or kind, to make it official, binding or legal
An example of a covenant without blood shedding is the Edenic one
An example of a covenant with blood shedding is the Abrahamic Covenant (i.e. blood shedding via circumcision)

Genesis 17:10-11
¹⁰This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep:
Every male among you shall be circumcised.
¹¹You must cut off the flesh of your foreskin as a sign of the covenant between me and you.

Primary difference between Covenant and Testament #2, is that, reiterating, covenant takes effect immediately after an oath
and unlike a Testament, it doesnt wait for the death or doesnt need the death of any of the participants before its application

MightySparrow:
As for the thread, New Testament started from the Day Jesus had the last supper (Covenant ceremony) with His disciples

The new agreement or covenant was done at the last supper (i.e. Matthew 26:28, the Covenant ceremony),
the testament or His last will, however wouldnt take effect until after His death

Exodus 24:8
Then Moses took the blood from the basins and splattered it over the people, declaring,
"Look, this blood confirms the covenant the LORD has made with you in giving you these instructions."

Jeremiah 31:31-34
³¹“The day is coming,” says the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah.
³²This covenant will not be like the one I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand
and brought them out of the land of Egypt.
They broke that covenant, though I loved them as a husband loves his wife,” says the Lord.

³³“But this is the new covenant I will make with the people of Israel on that day,” says the Lord.
“I will put my instructions deep within them, and I will write them on their hearts.
I will be their God, and they will be my people.
³⁴And they will not need to teach their neighbors,
nor will they need to teach their relatives, saying, ‘You should know the Lord.’
For everyone, from the least to the greatest, will know me already,” says the Lord.
“And I will forgive their wickedness, and I will never again remember their sins.”

Matthew 26:28
for this is my blood, which confirms the covenant between God and his people.
It is poured out as a sacrifice to forgive the sins of many.

MightySparrow:
His death on the cross marked the end of the OT.

Well, maybe appropriately, it marked the end of an old covenant or old agreement

MightySparrow:
We must understand that OT started with Abraham with Genesis 15 s a family and re - enacted with the nation of Israel in Exodus 24. Again on the day of Passover in Jesus time.

It is true that there are at least up to seven different covenants or agreements in the Bible,
which spanned from Adam in Eden, to Noah and in regards to the flood, to Abraham and in regards to the Promise, to the Israelites and in regards to the Promise land and to etcetera other agreements or covenants

But since no one died before the application of the so called ''OT'',
then in a manner suitable for such a case like this, ''OT'' should be called old covenant or old agreement, as opposed to an ''OT'' tag

MuttleyLaff:
Primary similarity between Covenant and Testament #1, is that, they both fundamentally are agreements,
however with covenant, sometimes it can be a one sided agreement, other times its an all party involved mutual agreement

Quite apt an explanation. Great job.

Primary difference between Covenant and Testament #1, is that, covenant takes effect immediately after an oath
which usually or at times, involves blood shedding of some sort or kind, to make it official, binding or legal
An example of a covenant without blood shedding is the Edenic one
An example of a covenant with blood shedding is the Abrahamic Covenant (i.e. blood shedding via circumcision)

Debosky... Ain't this lovely? We're all seeding you with knowledge... Freely.

Primary difference between Covenant and Testament #2, is that, reiterating, covenant takes effect immediately after an oath
and unlike a Testament, it doesnt wait for the death or doesnt need the death of any of the participants before its application

Someone was here asking me who died for the 'OT' to take effect.

The new agreement or covenant was done at the last supper (i.e. Matthew 26:28, the Covenant ceremony),
the testament or His last will, however wouldnt take effect until after His death

Debosky... Come with a pen and notepad, please.

Exodus 24:8
Then Moses took the blood from the basins and splattered it over the people, declaring,
"Look, this blood confirms the covenant the LORD has made with you in giving you these instructions."

Jeremiah 31:31-34
³¹“The day is coming,” says the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah.
³²This covenant will not be like the one I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand
and brought them out of the land of Egypt.
They broke that covenant, though I loved them as a husband loves his wife,” says the Lord.

³³“But this is the new covenant I will make with the people of Israel on that day,” says the Lord.
“I will put my instructions deep within them, and I will write them on their hearts.
I will be their God, and they will be my people.
³⁴And they will not need to teach their neighbors,
nor will they need to teach their relatives, saying, ‘You should know the Lord.’
For everyone, from the least to the greatest, will know me already,” says the Lord.
“And I will forgive their wickedness, and I will never again remember their sins.”

Great!

Matthew 26:28
for this is my blood, which confirms the covenant between God and his people.
It is poured out as a sacrifice to forgive the sins of many.

Sweet.

Well, maybe appropriately, it marked the end of an old covenant or old agreement

Aha...now,you're getting there. Nice job

It is true that there are at least up to seven different covenants or agreements in the Bible,
which spanned from Adam in Eden, to Noah and in regards to the flood, to Abraham and in regards to the Promise, to the Israelites and in regards to the Promise land and to etcetera other agreements or covenants

But since no one died before the application of the so called ''OT'',
then in a manner suitable for such a case like this, ''OT'' should be called old covenant or old agreement, as opposed to an ''OT'' tag

Wonderful piece... Awful conclusion. Great news is, I'm here to fix it.

I posted this few lines away..

Jesus Christ is that single person upon which the entire Old Testament is based.

God's agreement (covenant) with the Hebrews (Exodus 19 through to chapter 24 ) under Mosaic Law all hinged upon the coming Messiah. (no need to prove this for you )

The Old Testament covenant was very much like a personal living will, which only became effective when Christ died and full payment was made for man's sins.

What need was there for a new testament, if there wasn't an old one?

Luk 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

Read it up bro. God bless you