Hey, my brothers, don't fight na. Gosh, Olaa is my very good brother o, take time. Olaa, Gosh is my very good brother o, be careful.
Gosh, you've not told me/us the relevance of this 'mind boggle' BH. I initially saw the 'blood shed' in that passage. The point i wanted to amplify was that Jesus said "this cup IS the new testament". 'Is' is present. He could have simply said 'will be' i.e "this cup will be the new testament". At the point He was speaking, He believed and acted new testament. His forgiveness of sins during His ministry was based on the new testament. He saw Himself already slain from the foundation of the world. Time is in His hands, and He's definitely not bugged down by it. That same verse says "the blood which IS shed", not 'the blood which will be shed". Jesus was already living and acting in the new testament. Faith in Him was required right from start, that's new testament. God is not limited by our understanding of time. He owns time and eternity. In your logic now, it means Genesis and Job are not old testament? Hope i'm not sounding harsh sounding, pls inform me if i need to tone down.

I will not attempt to do details now,lol. This is what am talking about looking up words when you study. When you talk of "CUP" there in the verse, is it the cup the NT? No. Then you have to find out what the cup is used for as figurative. I will not tell you that, lol. Go deep dip bro. And of course if you say the cup "is" the NT that was in that verse. What shall you say to the fact that, without shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin? I have given you assignment, go and dig deeper,lol. Am being tempted to help you out but i will not. I want you to go dig deeper. Go look it up bro.lol.

"In your logic now, it means Genesis and Job are not old testament? Hope i'm not sounding harsh sounding, pls inform me if i need to tone down."

This one your words, I don't understand how you mean in my logic, Genesis and Job are not Old Testament? I don't understand that sir.

Image123:
One, is that they are placed in the new testament, not in the old testament by people who know more than us.

A very lame excuse, especially in the light of Heb.9

Two, is that they were written during the new testament dispensation, making them new testament books.

I can’t get your point. It is like saying, ’’ the boy is wicked because, he is wicked!’’

Three, is that you and other proponents of the gospels are OT would agree that not all the book is OT from your definition of OT. I mean if your definition is that NT begins after the cross, some verses and chapters of Matthew, Mark ,Luke and John are after the cross.

A very sound point and let me say that I do not object at all at the placement of these books in the new testament; for the simple reason that the parts after the cross are new testament , in my humble opinion. It is for this reason I said the books were[b] essentially[/b] (or mainly) old testament.

Four, is that most are not even agreed on the time the NT began. Is it at Calvary, after Christ's death, after His ressurection, after His ascension? When?

So your point is that , even if it is clear that the new testament began after the death of Christ, we should accept it began with Matthew 1:1, since we do not know the precise moment it began, after the death of Christ? Are you reading yourself?

i will come to other reasons later but let me deal with this below

Hebrews 9:

15 ¶ And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

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.
5solas comes in with the men are dead reason, the question is [b]IS JESUS DEAD OR ALIVE?[/b]

It is better to ask the Holy Spirit, who inspired the writer of this epistle.

goshen360:

Great Point! I want us to prove it more. Can You?

I think the scripture I quoted proved it far beyond whatever I can come up with. The new testament cannot start before the death of Christ (the testator). So in my opinion some parts of the gospels are new testament.
The gospels are said to be new testament by definition, but with the passage (Hebrews 9), it is clear they are not in actuality. However, I do not have any objections to their placement in the new testament (as defined) ; if for no other reason than the fact that, if they were placed in the old testament (as defined ), Image can rightly object that Matthew 28 should be taken to the new testament (as defined) .

I came across this message and gained from it. It relates to this topic...kindly take time to open the link below and make your own conclusions:

http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/covenant.html

Cheers

@ Snowwy,

Thanks for that link. I have always said, we should read the OT IN THE LIGHT OF THE NT, NOT READING THE NT IN THE LIGHT OF THE OLD. THE OLD IS FULFILLED IN THE NEW.

@ Snowwy again,
You see the word of God is too loaded. The link you gave is very relevant to this topic but incomplete. How? Am glad u asked. You see, Jesus was doing two thing when he came.

Fulfilling the old
Establishing the new that will then take effect after his death,resurrection n ascension.

I do not claim to know it all but I also see it from another or deeper dimension. If he wasn't establishing the NT that will take effect after he's gone, what will be the new that will take effect or when the old is taken away, what new will be established. So the link you gave is right on course but more to that link, he (Jesus) was also establishing NT during his living the OT. By the Spirit of God, If you dig deeper, you will understand why Jesus had disciples and why he cant just teach the whole public same thing. You will often find him (Jesus) teaching disciples separately even though the things taught are now written to us all.

I can point out many things to show Jesus was living the OT and also establishing the NT. So from your link, it confirms to me that Matthew to John are old.

@goshen360,
Based on the link, not all things in the OT has been fuflfilled even after the death of Christ. Many things are yet to be fulfilled even as at now. The author in that link never stated that the old is fulfilled in the new...

Infact, the scriptures says Jesus came to fulfill what was said of him by the law and the prophets, it never said that Jesus came to fulfill the old.
Please study again.

Hebrews 9:

15 ¶ And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.


Jesus came to redeem us from the transgressions under the first testament and not to redeem us from the laws of the first testament. That was why he did not allow the adulterous woman to be stoned...he saved her from the curse of the law not from doing the law of God which is not to commit adultery and he told her to go and sin no more.
It is only the Holy Spirit that can help us do the will of God and obey His commands effectively, something those under the law couldn't do.

We can study the testaments in light of each other actually, there is that liberty.
I will try and post some scriptures to assist the study later...kinda busy now.

Snowwy: @goshen360,
Based on the link, not all things in the OT has been fuflfilled even after the death of Christ. Many things are yet to be fulfilled even as at now. The author in that link never stated that the old is fulfilled in the new...

Infact, the scriptures says Jesus came to fulfill what was said of him by the law and the prophets, it never said that Jesus came to fulfill the old.
Please study again.

What was said of him by the law and prophets are or refers to prophesies concerning him in the Prophet book and in the Law, his types and shadows and things said about him. This is my understanding of that verse and that verse had been fulfilled already even when he came.

Well, maybe we need to do more study but what exactly is your take on this thread? Matthew to John, OT or NT in context, we as bible student now cannot change it though but when we study, we can always have it in mind that Matthew to John is OT or NT, that's what I intend with this thread.

Thank you though.

goshen360:

What was said of him by the law and prophets are or refers to prophesies concerning him in the Prophet book and in the Law, his types and shadows and things said about him. This is my understanding of that verse and that verse had been fulfilled already even when he came.

@goshen,
As at the time Jesus said He came to fulfil the law and not to abolish it, he was yet to fulfil Isaiah 53:4-6,
8-9, Psalm 68:18 amongst others.

Jesus said he didn't come to destroy the law and the prophets, instead he said he came to fulfill or accomplish it. In other words he came to do it. That's why he continued that no one should stop people from obeying even the least of God's commands. And till heaven and earth pass away, no tittle of God's word will go unfulfilled.
The revelation I got from that therefore is that the only way we can fulfil the law and the prophets is through Jesus. We can never do it on our own and that is why He came.

Romans 13:10 says love is the fulfillment of the law. As everything in the law and prophets is hinged on love, Does this abolish the law? No! The law and the prophets is encapsulated in love of God and our neighbour. The righteous requirement of the law is what we are to fulfil not of the letter (flesh).

Romans 8:3-4 (KJV)
 3For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

 4That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

In summary, the above shows that the law was weak THROUGH the flesh and God sent his son to condemn sin in the flesh not to condemn the law.
The righteous requirement of the law what was Jesus fulfilled in us and that is why it is only in Jesus that we can fulfil the law.

goshen360:
Well, maybe we need to do more study but what exactly is your take on this thread? Matthew to John, OT or NT in context, we as bible student now cannot change it though but when we study, we can always have it in mind that Matthew to John is OT or NT, that's what I intend with this thread.
Thank you though.

I will rather leave the gospels as they have been set already in the bible.
All the advice, admonitions, rebuke, commands, preaching, exhortations Jesus gave while on earth is valid today and that is enough for me.
Cheers.

@ Snowwy,

I agree with you. We cannot throw away the words of our testator. I have said before and will say it again, if we don't accept the words of Paul or other epistles,letters or correspondences, we must accept the words of Christ. Studying to understand Christ's teachings and other epistles might be hard but by the help of holy spirit, we will understand they are not different at all. Also keep in mind, the law was a school master that had led us to Christ. The grace of Christ is now sufficient for us, not to try to still keep the law. Besides, the law was written for the Jews not we, the gentiles. Our (gentile) New law is written in Christ. Remember Jesus said, a new commandments I give unto you.

Anyway, we know in part and we keep to study deeper. God bless you bro.

@goshen,
You are very right, we are to study as a scripture can bring about many revelations.

goshen360: @ Snowwy,

Also keep in mind, the law was a school master that had led us to Christ. The grace of Christ is now sufficient for us, not to try to still keep the law. Besides, the law was written for the Jews not we, the gentiles. Our (gentile) New law is written in Christ. Remember Jesus said, a new commandments I give unto you.

We cannot try to keep the law, we keep the law through the grace of Jesus Christ. That's the difference between the law and the prohets period and the grace period.
The law was a school master truly but on Jesus we obey the law of God due to love. The new commandment was hinged on the old. It was basically a summary of the old and when gentiles come to Christ they obey God's laws through the help of the Holy Spirit.

Romans 2:14-15
14For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

 15Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;


Romans 2:28-29
28For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

 29But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God


Going by what you said, it means the gentiles who come to Christ are to study starting from the gospels only.
Even the bereans (gentiles) studied the scriptures.

Thanks bro.

I just ordered some study materials. I have to revisit some topics. I hope to come up with some new stuffs, topics, thread after. I hope you come on board. By the way, you are not coming to bible study, why?

@goshen,
That is great.
Constant study is required. Thank God for some of these topics that ginger me to study & meditate more.

Ephesians 4:13 (KJV)
 13Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

Well I noticed the topic approach is what has been going on already on NL, though your thread seems devoid of any slander and abuses. I pop in from time to time but will see where I can participate.
Thanks and cheers.

I've not been around. I still hope to be mire frequent. I've not read most posts on this thread. but I have this to say for the time being.

its not about if mattew, mark etc are new testaments or not. The books were obviously written under the new testamenttestament but the story they contain was under the old testament. they dealt about the MAN Jesus Christ the prophet of galilee. but his new testament ministry was not revealed in the gospels.

his resurrection life was not dwelt. the revelation of the new testament is in the epistles. especially in the teachings of Paul who Jesus gave the revelations of the church to. his writings were the mist influential Christian material in his generation. even earlier apostles were influenced by his writings. peter talked about Paul materials.

its also important to know that the gospel writers were influenced by him also.
Luke was his son. mark was his companion in missionary work until Paul sent him back. teachings of Paul were evident in johns epistles.

Joagbaje:

its not about if mattew, mark etc are new testaments or not. The books were obviously written under the new testamenttestament but the story they contain was under the old testament. they dealt about the MAN Jesus Christ the prophet of galilee. but his new testament ministry was not revealed in the gospels.

its also important to know that the gospel writers were influenced by him also. Luke was his son. mark was his companion in missionary work until Paul sent him back. teachings of Paul were evident in johns epistles.

Great Points highlighted.

Snowwy: @goshen,
That is great.
Constant study is required. Thank God for some of these topics that ginger me to study & meditate more.

Ephesians 4:13 (KJV)
 13Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

Well I noticed the topic approach is what has been going on already on NL, though your thread seems devoid of any slander and abuses. I pop in from time to time but will see where I can participate.
Thanks and cheers.

Very powerful verse. One of those I love so much. Thanks.

@gosh
Happy sunday. You're yet to give the significance iasked for na. On genesis and Job. My point is that, on your logic, Matthew to John are OT books because the events happened before Christ's ascension(when ATY, the NT started). On that basis too, Genesis and Job events occured before the old covenant started, so they are not old testament books. i don't think God works according to our time thoughts.

Joagbaje: I've not been around. I still hope to be mire frequent. I've not read most posts on this thread. but I have this to say for the time being.

its not about if mattew, mark etc are new testaments or not. The books were obviously written under the new testamenttestament but the story they contain was under the old testament. they dealt about the MAN Jesus Christ the prophet of galilee. but his new testament ministry was not revealed in the gospels.

his resurrection life was not dwelt. the revelation of the new testament is in the epistles. especially in the teachings of Paul who Jesus gave the revelations of the church to. his writings were the mist influential Christian material in his generation. even earlier apostles were influenced by his writings. peter talked about Paul materials.

its also important to know that the gospel writers were influenced by him also.
Luke was his son. mark was his companion in missionary work until Paul sent him back. teachings of Paul were evident in johns epistles.

Great post.The passage from Ephesians 3 below, supports your assertion:



1 ¶ For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,

2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:

3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,

4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)

5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

7 Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.

8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;

9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

11 According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:

12 In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him.

13 Wherefore I desire that ye faint not at my tribulations for you, which is your glory.

14 ¶ For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,

15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,

16 That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man;

17 That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,
18 May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height;


19 And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.
20 Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us,

21 Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.

@ Image123,
Case closed. Happy Sunday to you oga mi. Mr Joagbaje had given us the best answer and I go with that. Read Joe's comment above sir. lol. Wetin you chop remain for Goshen nah? Remember to send your seed offerings,lol.

@ 5solas,
Great job to you also. Nice confirmation. Make my friend and brother Image123 follow join now.

[size=14pt]Jesus is lord.[/size]

goshen360: @ Image123,
Case closed. Happy Sunday to you oga mi. Mr Joagbaje had given us the best answer and I go with that. Read Joe's comment above sir. lol. Wetin you chop remain for Goshen nah? Remember to send your seed offerings,lol.

@ 5solas,
Great job to you also. Nice confirmation. Make my friend and brother Image123 follow join now.

Thank you and thanks again for bringing it up. I hope Image sees it the way we do.

Yepa, you sef wan chop seed offering my brother goshen, you go chop mango seed, i fit look for like one thousand pieces oh, lol.
On OP, don't mind me, i'll pass sha. I still think Jesus operated in the NT. His forgiveness of sin/sinners were NT based. Faith in Him, which He often required was NT based. Even His laws (e.g "ye have heard,. . .but I say") were NT based. It would be IMPOSSIBLE to follow Him in the OT mode. Christ NT was revealed in the gospels, just that they were not understood until the vail was rent in twain. We now understand the gospels because of the rest of the NT. And we now understand the rest of the NT because of the gospels, it's a kind of symbiosis. We think we'd understand them apart because we've read them all. But note that even the disciples did not understand, and the scribes and pharisees who interpreted the law were often left baffled. Like i said though, i'll pass. It's been great fellowshipping with you guys on these lines.

The First Christian

"He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light." (John 1:8.)

Perhaps the least understood and appreciated man in the Bible is the man who was the first Christian soul winner, missionary, martyr, disciple, and pastor, as well as the first to make disciples for Christ, to acknowledge His deity, to baptise converts to Christ, to be imprisoned for his faith, and to teach concerning Christ, as Christ later commanded in His great commission.

John the Baptist is often mistakenly called the last Old Testament prophet, but that was Malachi, 400 years earlier. John was actually the first Christian! He leaped in joyous recognition of Christ while still in his mother’s womb (Luke 1:44); in fact, he uniquely (apart from Christ) was "filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb"[/b] (Luke 1:15).

He was such a godly man that he was often mistaken for Christ, and John the apostle even had to stress that John the Baptist was not really that Light, but that God had sent him to bear witness of the true Light—Jesus Christ. Christ Himself testified that no greater man than John the Baptist (not even Noah, Abraham, Job, Moses, or Daniel!) had ever been born (Matthew 11:9–11).

In no sense was the message of John an "Old Testament" message. He preached the deity of Christ, redemption by His sacrificial death, and salvation only through faith in Him (John 1:34,29; 3:36). He "began" the gospel message (Mark 1:1,2) and baptized and taught disciples whom he then directed to Christ. Their baptism was "Christian baptism." In fact, John had baptised Christ Himself! Finally, when he had "(made) ready a people prepared for the Lord" (Luke 1:17), he was imprisoned by Herod and executed because of his faithful witness for Christ. He had given the "knowledge of salvation unto His people" (Luke 1:77). HMM

For more . . . .

Matthew 1 Is Not The First Book Of The New Testament...
Again, people who accept Matthew 1 as the beginning of the New Testament do not understand that they have established their hopes and theology in the conditions for faith and salvation in the teachings of the Old Testament Mosaical covenant – the law of Moses – taught in MMLJ/BC rather than the true New Testament teaching of Christ for this New Testament "age" through his apostles in Acts 2 through Revelation 22.
Many denominations -- believe and teach -- that to "follow" Christ today they must practice John's old covenant baptism, keep the sabbath, worship according to the law of Moses, and teach men to keep "the ten commandments" as Christ did when he lived under the Old Testament law of Moses in Israel. Few denominational people realize that the New Testament "age," with the new covenant teaching of Christ revealed through the apostles in Acts 2 through Revelation 22, did not begin until after his death, burial, resurrection and ascension as described in Acts 2.
Jesus Old Testament Mission To “Only” Old Testament Israel In MMLJ/BC
Under the conditions of the old covenant law of Moses that was in force during the time of Jesus and MMLJ/BC, Jesus declared, "...I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matt. 15:24), and he sent his twelve disciples only "...to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matt. 10:5-6). Contrary to popular opinion, in MMLJ/BC - Christ was sent and came only to minister to the “last generation” of Jews in Old Testament Israel. He was not sent to minister to the world of sinners – before the cross.
In truth, neither John the baptizer of Israel or Jesus the Messiah sent to Israel - nor their old covenant Jewish disciples of the time ever taught new covenant "doctrine" -- before the cross. Their teaching was a "restatement" of the "truth" of the law of Moses in contrast to the false rabbinical "traditions" about the law among the Jewish sects of the Pharisees, Sadducees, Herodians, Essenes and others (Matt. 15:1-9). Jesus was an Old Testament "Israelite" and "prophet" sent to spiritual save Israel -- he was not a New Testament "Christian" or new covenant "evangelist" sent to save alien sinners from among "all nations." Christ’s New Testament mission to the world did not begin until until after the death of Christ on the cross and the “end” of the Old Testament “age.”
Jesus lived, preached and practiced the Old Testament faith, religion and law of Moses during the old covenant "age" (MMLJ/BC) in which he lived. Therefore, because Jesus did not live and teach during the New Testament "age," he never preached the new covenant "gospel," he never converted one "alien sinner," he never produced one new covenant "Christian," he never established the New Testament church, he never worked or worshipped with the New Testament "church." MMLJ/BC describe the last thirty-three years of the Old Testament Mosaical "age," not the "beginning" of the New Testament "age." Only Acts 2 through Revelation 22 reveals the complete New Testament and "doctrine" of Christ and describes the "beginning" and first fifty years of this new covenant "age."