₦airaland Forum

Bidam: from d beginning of our arguement i never said jesus operated in d new..He was under the law during His ministry na.

Bidam: wow apsotle goshen..thats a good one..tho..we might disagree on some doctrinal issues..we are still brothers na...ur expositions are tremendous i can't match them..thats not my calling sha..i flow more with the prophetic.

Bidam: ehen..na now u talk so there is no wahala calling mathew- john new testament then.

Bidam: of course i understand you perfectly well your ministry or calling if you really have one is to slander well meaning ministers of the gospel claiming they are teaching error thereby creating a followers of unbelievers who tend to agree with you rather than drawing them to CHRIST and to the knowledge of the truth. your post is full of it all over nairaland. i might be new here but i have enough sense to know your agenda.

Bidam: we all are learning and i took alot of time to research this matter...oga goshen can you pls explian all the points raised by this article?

Are Matthew, Mark, Luke, And John In The Old Testament
By: Brian A. Yeager

Jesus said: “He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me. These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you” (John 14:21-26).

In the Scriptures above you can see that one’s salvation is dependent upon following that which Jesus spoke while He was on this earth. Furthermore, you can see that the Holy Spirit was going to bring to remembrance what Jesus had said while He was on earth. Folks this is consistent with the “Great Commission” (as it is called): “And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen” (Matthew 28:18-20).

We know that the Old Law was not done away with until after Jesus died (Romans 7:1-6 and Colossians 2:14). That being said, that does not mean that the teaching of our Lord was Old Testament doctrine (John 1:17). Not all things contained in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John directly apply to us today (i.e. Matthew 10:5-10 and Matthew 21:21). The same is true of some things written in the “epistles” (Acts 1:15-26, Acts 19:1-7, and I Corinthians 12:3-11). Does that mean the “epistles” are not part of the New Testament? When Jesus was on earth He was not teaching things that fell into the Old Testament. In fact, even prior to Jesus coming to this earth the Old Law had begun to be set aside. The Bible plainly says so and this is where we’re going to begin diving a little deeper into our study.

Bidam: we all are learning and i took alot of time to research this matter...oga goshen can you pls explian all the points raised by this article?

The Law And The Prophets Were Until John
“For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come… The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it” (Matthew 11:10-14 and Luke 16:16).

What Old Testament Law was fulfilled when John the baptizer taught repentance and baptism (Matthew 3:1-12)? What Old Testament Law did Jesus obey when He was baptized (Matthew 3:13-16)? Remember, His baptism was pleasing to the Father (Matthew 3:17), though it was not Old Testament teaching! Those who rejected the teaching of John transgressed the will of God (Matthew 21:25-32). In fact, those who rejected the teaching of John were said to have been rejecting the counsel of God against themselves (Luke 7:29-30). John was teaching baptism (of which the Law of Moses said nothing about). Clearly, from John the baptizer forward, a new covenant was being put in place. To say it wasn’t is to say that John was adding to the Law of Moses, for he was teaching things that the Old Testament does not mention (Joshua 1:7). In fact, the same would be true of Jesus and Paul. Let’s notice this point next.

Bidam: NOW TAKE A LOOK AT THIS AND TELL ME IF I AM WRONG:
There is an insidious teaching on the rise that says because the New Covenant of Christ was established at the cross (this part is correct, Heb 9:15-17) the teachings of Christ spoken prior to the cross are Old Testament and were done away with the rest of Old Law. It's correct that the New Covenant went into force at the death of Christ but we can't agree that all of Jesus' teachings prior to the cross were therefore only part of the Old Covenant. The false teaching to erase many of Jesus' teachings is motivated not in the interest of sound exposition, but rather by a desire to strip away the teaching by Jesus on divorce and remarriage - because it falls chronologically before the cross.

Goshen360: One thing I want to point out though I agree with what is said above here as quoted is the misconception of Luke 16:16. Many think Luke 16:16 is saying the law and prophets ENDED (was until) at the time of John the Baptist. If this interpretation is taken, it will contradict these few scriptures. For instance, it will contradict,

New International Version (©1984)
Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.- Romans 10:4

New International Version (©1984)
But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, - Galatians 4:4.

If we take the interpretation of Luke 16:16 to mean that the law ended at the appearance of John the Baptist, then there will be no law for Christ to fulfill or end and Christ would not have been born under the law as we know Christ was born after John the baptist. Hence, we understand that the law and prophets was still in effect until the birth and death of Christ that will end it. That scripture, Luke 16:16 simple means the Law and prophets were still in effect and still functional until John came as a forerunner to begin a transition program for the kingdom of God. These translations confirm the truth of Luke 16:16,

Expanded Bible (EXB)
“The law of Moses and the writings of the prophets [ the Old Testament] were preached [or were in force;  were] until John [ the Baptist] came [ John is the transitional figure between the age of promise and the age of salvation]. Since then the Good News [Gospel] about the kingdom of God is being told [preached; proclaimed], and everyone tries to enter it by force [or is eager to get into it; or is strongly urged to enter it].

New English Translation (NET)
“The law and the prophets were in force until John; since then, the good news of the kingdom of God has been proclaimed, and everyone is urged to enter it.

New Living Translation (NLT)
“Until John the Baptist, the law of Moses and the messages of the prophets were your guides. But now the Good News of the Kingdom of God is preached, and everyone is eager to get in.

GOD’S WORD Translation (GW)
“Moses’ Teachings and the Prophets were in force until the time of John. Since that time, people have been telling the Good News about the kingdom of God, and everyone is trying to force their way into it.

Good News Translation (GNT)
“The Law of Moses and the writings of the prophets were in effect up to the time of John the Baptist; since then the Good News about the Kingdom of God is being told, and everyone forces their way in.

So we understand the law didn't end at the appearance of John the Baptist but was in force, in effect until the appearance of John and still in effect until Christ was born and the death of Christ ended it.

Bidam: Are Jesus and Paul False Teachers?
Moses wrote: “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you… What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it” (Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32). Jesus certainly added to and changed the words of Moses (Matthew 19:3-9). In fact, He proclaimed that His words, while on earth, would be used in the Judgment (John 12:48). If Matthew - John are part of the Old Law, you have to condemn Jesus as a false teacher who added to God’s words!

Bidam: Are Matthew, Mark, Luke, And John In The Old Testament
By: Brian A. Yeager

In addition, if Matthew - John are part of the Old Law, then Paul would be a false teacher. Paul used what happened the night in which the Lord was betrayed as our authority to partake of the Lord’s Supper (I Corinthians 11:23-26).
The original accounts of the institution of the Lord’s Supper, as Paul used the same wording, are found in Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Matthew 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-25, and Luke 22:14-20). If one concludes that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are in the Old Testament they have to conclude that Paul was a false teacher for teaching us to observe an Old Testament memorial.[b]

Bidam: we all are learning and i took alot of time to research this matter...oga goshen can you pls explian all the points raised by this article?

Are Matthew, Mark, Luke, And John In The Old Testament
By: Brian A. Yeager

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John Were Written After Jesus Died
I have a personal last will and testament. They are words that I have declared while I am alive. However, they do not take effect until I die. What Jesus taught in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were not written until after He died. Yet, one will quickly point out that the events occurred and the words were spoken while He was alive and another law was in effect. Pardon me, but that’s obvious. For the words that Jesus spoke while He was on earth to be in full effect, He had to die. Notice the Scriptures: “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. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth” (Hebrews 9:15-17[/b]).

Bidam: Are Matthew, Mark, Luke, And John In The Old Testament
By: Brian A. Yeager

Conclusion
In Matthew chapter five we find Jesus taking the Old Law and changing it to His Law. We read the phrase, “Ye have heard… But I say unto you” when Jesus taught His Law rather than Moses’ Law on various matters. Jesus taught a new law on anger, adultery, divorce, swearing, carnal revenge, etc. (Matthew 5:21-48). This, as well as all we’ve covered, proves that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are New Testament books. Any of these points should be enough to convince the honest seeker!

Bidam: @GOSHEN, This is where you got your heresy from: Are Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John Old Testament Books?

By Justin Johnson
Most every casual Bible student would know that the New Testament section of the Bible begins with the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. We may also know that the origin of this division comes from the different languages from which they were translated.

However, naming the Greek portion of Scripture as the New Testament could possibly be the origin of many problems people have in understanding Jesus’ earthly ministry. For according to the Scripture, the majority of these four narratives of the life of our Lord Jesus are indeed Old Testament.

Hebrews 9:15-17 says:

“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. For where a testament is, there must also OF NECESSITY BE THE DEATH OF THE TESTATOR. For A TESTAMENT IS OF FORCE AFTER MEN ARE DEAD: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.”

Hebrews 9:15-17 explains that it was after Jesus’ death that the New Testament took force. Galatians 4:4 explains:

“…when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, MADE UNDER THE LAW,…”

The Mosaic Law was the order of the Old Covenant. According to Galatians 4:4, Jesus was born and lived under the Old Covenant. It was not until his death that the New Testament could be made available. Since the large majority of each book and Jesus’ entire earthly ministry occurred before his death then it should be considered that these four books are still in the context of the Old Covenant.

This would explain why Paul wrote that Jesus ‘was a minister of the circumcision to confirm the promises made unto the Fathers’ (Romans 15:.

This would also explain why Jesus operated according to the Old Testament:

Was circumcised (Luke 2:27)
Water Baptized (Matt 3:15)
Taught Conditional forgiveness (Matt 6:14)
Taught Levitical Sacrifice for Healing (Matt 8:4)
“Follow the commandments” (Mark 10:17-19)
“Obey the Pharisees” (Matt 23:2-3)
Observed feast days (Matt 26:17)
In order to better understand the Scriptures we need to understand the context of the passages we read. Therefore it is important to realize that the events leading up to the cross in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are under the Old Testament.

Bidam: NOW TAKE A LOOK AT THIS AND TELL ME IF I AM WRONG:
There is an insidious teaching on the rise that says because the New Covenant of Christ was established at the cross (this part is correct, Heb 9:15-17) the teachings of Christ spoken prior to the cross are Old Testament and were done away with the rest of Old Law. It's correct that the New Covenant went into force at the death of Christ but we can't agree that all of Jesus' teachings prior to the cross were therefore only part of the Old Covenant. The false teaching to erase many of Jesus' teachings is motivated not in the interest of sound exposition, but rather by a desire to strip away the teaching by Jesus on divorce and remarriage - because it falls chronologically before the cross.

Bidam: This teaching is just one more deception of Satan as there's no shortage of counterfeits, but there's but one truth. Dan Billingsly is a champion of this grievous error.

Billingsly pretending to be correcting a Catholic error thrust upon us all, he claims that the New Testament title page is the big problem. If only the title page was at the end of the Gospel at the crucifixion of Christ, all of the confusion would be erased. But this is smoke and mirrors by a talented Sophist.

The graphic below depicts the Biblical view to understand the correct view of the Old and New Law. The Old in effect until the cross. The New being ratified at the cross of Jesus, but it was introduced during the ministry of Jesus. The point we see is that what Jesus introduced concerning the Gospel and His Kingdom is not nullified and made obsolete at the cross. This simple truth is ignored by Mr. Billingsly.

We learn from Jesus' words that chronology - whatever is before the cross is Old Law teaching and whatever is after the cross is New Testament teaching - is not the only factor for determining what is Old or New Testament teaching. Consider a few important verses that establish that it's more sophisticated that Billingsley would like to admit:

Hebrews 9:15-17 the covenant or testament of a man is ratified when a man dies, but it is written while he lives - i.e. Jesus' spoke of New Testament things in the Gospels prior to the cross. This passage alone refutes the premise of the error. True to form, the New Testament of Jesus Christ was being written and communicated during the lifetime ministry of Jesus. This is an inconvenient truth for Billingsly and his handful of defenders.

Consider also Luke 16:16 that says the gospel of the kingdom was being preached from the time of John the Baptist. It would not be ratified until the death of the testator, but it was being proclaimed before the cross.
See also what Jesus said about church discipline before the cross, Mt 18:15-18.
15 “If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 “But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED. 17 “If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 “Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven." - Mt 18:15-18
Since the church was established after the cross, this passage on church discipline is clearly New Testament teaching smack dab in the middle of the Gospels.

See that in John 3:3-5 the "new birth" was already declared though it is clearly New Covenant teaching being previewed before the cross, see also 1 Pt 1:3, 23.

See also Mt 28:20. Though these words are spoken after the cross and the ratification of Christ's new covenant, is it reasonable to conclude that disciples only obey Jesus' words uttered after the cross? I say no.
Though the Gospels do in fact include much exposition on the Old Covenant, they also include teachings by Jesus concerning His New Covenant which was ratified at the cross.

See Luke 10:7 where Jesus teaches the validity of the preacher being supported for his labor. And compare that with 1 Timothy 5:18 where Paul shows that Jesus' teaching is New Testament teaching.

So we see that the Gospel of the Kingdom of Christ, with particulars of the New Covenant that would be ratified at His death, was being taught and commanded prior to the cross in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Consequence of the truth that the Gospels contain New Testament teachings....

1. Mt 19 teaching on divorce and remarriage is valid - especially since the teaching is based on God's design and intent from the beginning of creation.
2. Mt 10:24-33 and the command to confess Jesus is valid as New Testament teaching.
3. Mt 16:24 and requirement to take up your cross is valid still.
4. Lk 13:3 and command to repent is valid.

Keep alert for this insidious teaching is spreading. Dan Billingsly is sending his teaching to churches across the country asking church secretaries to pass on his message to the Elders and Preachers. But his teaching is insidious and dangerous. I pray that I do a little to correct this error before it spreads.

Rotmyt: Many examples abound. Let's talk about the "men of God" who proffer fasting as a biblical solution to problems. They ask people to fast for 40 days and above or to pay them to fast on their behalf knowing fully well that the average man would rather pay for the fast.

Shall we also mention those who have turned my God to a money doubler? Those who equate him to baba ijebu or those who instill fear in the hearts of the members? Luring the congregation to give to God with the sole aim of receiving in return. Infact, almost all churches are guilty of coercing members into giving.

Logicboy03: Are you not going to defend your faith from harsh arguments against it?

Logicboy03: Yawn

Doesnt the bible tell you to defend your faith? Mtchew.........

Bidam: i have already explained what ur heb 9:15-17 is saying may be u re blind, obstinate or hell bent in winning dis argument i dnt understand..

Bidam: u still have not yet explained how the books of mathew-john are old testaments..pardon my ignorance but based on my understanding of the scripture u quoted..the sayings of jesus or what jesus taught in mathew 5:21-48.(He was changing the law of moses and bringing His own laws)..were not written until after He died. Yet what you are trying to point out is that the events occured and the words were spoken while he was alive(under the law)..pardon me but that is obvious na...for the words that Jesus spoke while he was on earth to be be in FULL EFFECT, HE had to die. The scripture is saying i have a personal last will and testament(mathew-john). They are words that i have declared while i am alive..however they do not take effect until i die.. Look at mat 19:3-9, jesus added to and changed the words of moses..infact He proclaimed that His words, while on earth would be used in d judgement(john12:48). If mathew-john are part of the old law, you have to condemn Jesus as a false teacher who added to God's words and we know He is not.

Bidam: any way i will expose ur heretical teachings for wat it is worth..all dis very insidious teachings are propounded by ur heretical father dan billingsly..

Bidam: U tactical dodge d salient points i raised about Christ teachings...but lemme ask u again.. Another question..when John the baptiser taught repentance and baptism..what old testament law did Jesus obey when he was baptised?

Goshen360: The question is, DID THE EVENTS RECORDED ALSO HAPPENED AFTER THE DEATH/RESURRECTION OF CHRIST OR DURING I gave you biblical text right in front of you and you denied such truth. I seriously need you to answer this question please!

Goshen360: I don't mix any error with the truth. I only use biblical text to explain biblical text. My source is the teacher, Holy Spirit and spend much time studying and proving the truth and biblical text. Now, you agreed that Matthew to John were written AFTER the death and resurrection of Christ. The question is, DID THE EVENTS RECORDED ALSO HAPPENED AFTER THE DEATH/RESURRECTION OF CHRIST OR DURING I gave you biblical text right in front of you and you denied such truth. I seriously need you to answer this question please!

When you pull Galatians 4:4 I referenced and Hebrews 9:15-20, you will need to explain how Matthew to John are NT. One thing I will encourage you as a brother is to always reason or tie up scriptural text together when you study for yourself. One scripture must compliment the other. I haven't said anything in error.

Goshen360: @ Logicboy and Frostyzone,

There is what is called "chronological" arrangement - based on how books were written. The context of Matthew to John wasn't NT, but OT. Christ is the MEDIATOR of the NT and without the death of a testator, a testament is NOT in force. Under the chronological writings, Matthew to John was written AFTER the death but the context is DURING the earthly life of the testator. Do people write you biography when you are alive or does your will take effect when you are still alive?

Bidam: falsehood. Mathew, mark , Luke and john epistles are new testament scriptures written [size=15pt]after[/size] the death and resurrection of our LORD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST. the apostles were witnesses to these events..while the gospel of luke was graphically illustrated by doctor Luke who was with apostle paul

Bidam: i just don't understand you..sometimes u teach truth mixed with falsehood...just be careful with the cistern you are drinking from..becos there are false teachers out there...am not ur bible student so don't ask me irrelevant queshion..stick to d topic.. at least ur unbelieving friend seems to agree with u, lapping unto your heresies'

brilapluz: The “Melchizedek” Argument ( Genesis 14:18-20 )

It is a tremendous perversion of scripture to take a perpetual tithe from the wages of the sons of God – the Church – when the original tithe was a one time voluntary thank offering given by Abraham to Melchizedek from the plunder of an enemy! It is shameful to treat the sons of God like the enemy! How should the sons be treated? Consider Jesus response to the temple tax. Jesus asked Peter “What thinkest thou, Simon? The kings of the earth, from whom do they receive toll or tribute? From their sons, or from strangers?” Peter answered “From strangers” and Jesus replied “Therefore the sons are free” . ( Matthew 17:24-27 ).

brilapluz: The “Melchizedek” Argument ( Genesis 14:18-20 )

Another point to ponder from Genesis 14:18-20 is simply that Melchizedek did not ask Abraham for a tenth of the plunder. How is it that ministers can read Genesis 14:18-20 and ask for a tenth, when Melchizedek did not ask for a tenth? Let's look at what really happened in Genesis 14:18-20. Melchizedek came out to King's Valley to GIVE TO Abraham, NOT to receive from Abraham! Melchizedek brought bread and wine for Abraham, they ate together, and Melchizedek pronounced a wonderful blessing over Abraham. This is the very picture of Jesus who said "I did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give my life as a ransom for many!" (Matthew 20:28) Abraham was apparently so moved that he voluntarily gave a tenth of the plunder to Melchizedek. Why is it that I have never heard a minister address the greater meaning of this passage, by relating Melchizedek who served bread and wine to Abraham, to Jesus who offered his flesh and blood that we might live in communion with the Father forever (John 6:33-63)? Wasn't it bread and wine that Jesus served the disciples for the last supper (Luke 22:17-20)? Genesis 14:18-20 is of prophetic significance - a portrait of the new convenant of grace that would be implemented by the last Melchizedek priest: Jesus. Why then is it that so many ministers take Genesis 14:18-20 and turn it into a binding law on the freed sons of God, when clearly it is a wonderful promise of our eternal communion with the Father through that flesh and blood sin offering of Christ?

Omo Alata: God cursed Adam and Eve because they sinned.

Omo Alata: God cursed Cain because he sinned.

Noah cursed Canaan because he saw his unclothedness.

God will curse anyone who curses Abraham's children.

Omo Alata: If you disobey God, you come under a curse - Deuteronomy 28:45-46: “Moreover all these curses shall come upon you and pursue and overtake you, until you are destroyed, because you did not obey the voice of the LORD your God, to keep His commandments and His statutes which He commanded you.

etc etc etc

Omo Alata: If you rob God with tithes and offerings, you are cursed with a curse.

etc etc etc

Omo Alata: God cursed Adam and Eve because they sinned.

God cursed Cain because he sinned.

Noah cursed Canaan because he saw his unclothedness.

God will curse anyone who curses Abraham's children.

If you disobey God, you come under a curse - Deuteronomy 28:45-46: “Moreover all these curses shall come upon you and pursue and overtake you, until you are destroyed, because you did not obey the voice of the LORD your God, to keep His commandments and His statutes which He commanded you.

If you rob God with tithes and offerings, you are cursed with a curse.

etc etc etc

Omo Alata: If they sin, they open the door. Simples!!

Logicboy03: https://thedailygrind.robdamanii.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/StarTrekFacePalm.gif




Tithe is explained in the old testament.



Stoning and slavery are mentioned in the new testament just like tithing. Does that meake the Letters of Paul old testament?


I even know the bible more than you. Mtchew