Fvckyouall:


I don't think there is any need of continuing this conversation as either you don't read my posts or you don't understand them, good night

This is a strawman argument. It's usually a a ready and only weapon in disposal when a man looses his stand in argument.

See, I read at least twice all you wrote before commenting. And I will come to same conclusion even if I have read it 100 times. That conclusion is that you really need to calm down, submit yourself to proper teaching of the word and avoid just throwing words that you don't understand or can explain when questioned because it will come back to you.


You should take to correction, that's what the Bible called humility. I am sure like I said, you have seen through where I want to hook you based on your earlier posts, hence your strawman attitude. So, take the correction well.


Lastly, I will seriously advise you take time to examine what you study and your interpretation of God. It's very sad for me to read a Christian says God can receive an unbeliever into his kingdom and neglect a believer because of imperfection. Do you even know what that means? Do you actually know what God's kingdom is?

And when I used that same yard stick to measure your own rightness and perfection, you started picking stones to throw, yet you will blame the pharisee in the bible days for stones.


Please, read properly, and study as a Christian. When you have done this. You will see that what God and the bible called believers aren't perfect people in character but those who have believed in Jesus and God now at work in their life. As Christ is not coming for perfect people but coming to perfect his people, the church.

Anything anyone preaches outside this will put that same person to be the first at the gate of hell. Because the yardstick you used to measure your neighbor is what will be used to measure you too, even here on Nairaland as I did to you.

Selah.

Myer:


My challenge with you is you are already closed minded. While that is a good religious trait , it also blinds you to any new understanding.

Now you claimed I'm quoting scriptures out of context. Do you mean it is not by God's Grace that we can do anything at all?

You haven't done what I asked you to do, yet you accuse me. I pointed you to scriptures to do a reading. Why not do it first then tell me what you see through it. This is not about closed mind, it's about interpreting the scriptures.

Read the two verses you quoted with its surrounding text. You will see your error. Please do.

And your last phrase already shows you are confusing your words.

If you believe we do all things by God's grace why then say man's work is what determines his eternity. You need to stay on one, you can't do Babel in this. It's either grace or its not. You can't have a mix.


If I may asked you

How are you saved?
Are you very sure you will be saved when he comes?

In answering this, honestly pay attention to your mix up.

Myer:


This is why the Bible is an interesting book.
While you have correctly quoted scriptures that say that Salavation s man's choice, I will also quote scriptures that say that Salvatoon is God's choice.

Romans 8:30
And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

Phillipians 2:12-13
Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.

I hope you see here that it is not your choice or will but God's will.

Bro, you don't like reading bible as a whole. You like picking verses and end up making it out of context.

Bible study is the whole bible not a verse. At least the verses you quoted read the whole chapter, the whole book, the whole testament.

If you don't read all of the scriptures or read the whole discussion you will end up misrepresenting the bible.

So, firstly read through those places you quoted, I mean the whole chapter. And observe Roman 8 you quoted the discussion started from Roman 7 so read it together. Don't lift.


Philippians you quoted, by just simply reading next verse your interpretation will fall apart.

So, always pay attention to reading the whole thought of the writer.

Fvckyouall:


What I said in my previous statement was correct and I didn't reply you cause you were not making sense, where did I say I was a perfect being, I was scolding you for thinking unbelievers are not fit to be in God's kindom? You clearly don't read content you just paste whatever comes to your head I don't like quoting people who beat around the bush where there is no fire. So are you now the sole perfect creature God wants to meet.

The problem you believers have is that you think be just believing in God you are better than everyone else, that's the reason why Jesus told the pharesees even the harlots and tax collectors would enter his kingdom before them.
That's no different from the pharesees since you cannot understand the hypocracy here you are not well versed in the scriptures

You will really need to calm down. You will really need it here especially when you are making error in interpreting the scriptures. So bro, calm down big time.


Why was my question becoming an issue for you. I have gone beyond emotional blackmail. I asked you a simple question. Why the flare?

You said yourself here, that many Christian (you aren't counting yourself inclusive) aren't living a life Jesus wants and therefore we shouldn't be surprised that Jesus will leave the believer and accept unbeliever.

Then I asked you, will he leave you or accept you when he comes? I am sure you already see the trap you want to fall into if you answer this the reason you are agitated.

So, can we say you are part of the believers Jesus will leave behind since you aren't sure of your salvation and Jesus acceptance.

It is easy to be pointing fingers at Christians who aren't meeting up in their walk and character but now I turned the game on you, to tell me if you meet up the standard, you started throwing stones.


I will ask you again
Tell me here, if you have a perfect character and meet the standard of your message as you portray it here, if not you are part of those who will be left behind since you believe your own works and perfection is what counts when he comes. Else, then you are presenting a false teaching and you should repent and correct yourself immediately.

Who knows He can come now, please ensure you are not left behind by humbly taking to correction and this cannot happen with this high emotion you are showing. So calm down first.

Myer:


From my following 8f your exchange together, he never said God only chooses the unblemished. His affirmation rests on the verses where the Bible said even unbelievers like the crucified thief were chosen to make heaven while the self-righteous Pharisees were rejected.

You are speaking for him. Let him speak for himself. His earlier posts aren't disappearing here, at least not soon.


It's also obvious you missed the key element in a man's salvation. Salvation is not God's choice. He doesn't chose who to be saved. It is God's work alone but the decision to receive what he did for you is solely yours.

Christ died for all men. Either thief, pharisee, saducees, nairalander or scammer. He died for all.


So the key element you missed is, how then was the thief on the cross accepted and the pharisee were not. The answers were there for you to read if you chose to read with open mind.


How is a man saved, redeemed and accepted of God. It's clear in the bible

Romans 10
8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;

9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.


So, a man is saved by his faith in Christ, his gospel.


What you saw in the thief was an act of faith in the person of Jesus, listen to him again

Luke 23:42
And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.

He believed there is a kingdom, and he believed Jesus's own it. He believed only Jesus can get him into it. That is the act, the faith, the repentance, the reaching out, the calling on the name, the believing with the heart. That is how the thief got saved. Not a forced actions or actions driven by sharing money on the street or philanthropist. It's a believing.

It wasn't a random salvation. He acted on the word, he acted by his believe. That is, when a man believe the gospel, he receives God's salvation.


So, can we say this in the case of the Pharisee?

Well it depends on the Pharisee you refer to. Nicodemus was one, Joseph of Arimathea too. And they followed Jesus.

So, why were many Pharisee rejected? Is it God that determine their rejection? Or they rejected the mercy, salvation and preaching of the kingdom.

As a Bible student, I am sure you know the answer now.


So, does God chooses randomly? No

Is the scripture clear on who is saved and who is of the lord? Yes.


Hence, it is a strange gospel to treat the scriptures as portraying God as inconsistent and confuse being, who only act on momentary emotions.

Lastly, take note, just a little attention to verses and reading them together with surrounding text will surely deliver us from this error of misinterpretation.

Myer:


Interesting question. But even you are not sure you'll be chosen. Which is why the Bible says work out your salvation with fear and trembling.

Bro, why speaking for me? You are the judge and the jury. Lol. It's an offence doing this.


I still awaits the response of Fvckyouall. Since he has described to me the unblemished and perfect loving man Jesus is coming for. I need him to convince me he (Fvckyouall) is one of those perfect being that the Messiah is so eager to meet.

Myer:


Can you say God is consistent in the Bible though?

Apparently God's ways in the OT especially concerning judgment and mode of worshipping him changed in the NT. God in OT was more judgmental. While in NT God is loving and merciful being not quick in judgment so that everyone should repent.

In fact in the NT, God sent Paul to the Gentiles (Uncircumcised) with a different gospel and sent the other Apostles to the Jews (circumcised) with another gospel. Did you not notice that?

While Paul preached Faith absent works is salvation.
The other apostles preach Faith with works is dead.

From the aforementioned will you say God is consistent?

Bro, this is not the God the bible showed. God has not and cannot change. His character is the same from Genesis till eternity. You will have to read and examine him very well from OT into NT to know God is the same in character, judgment and virtue. He never changes.

Secondly, why do you like quoting Paul wrongly, even the other apostles. You will be misrepresenting the preaching of Faith and works going by what you wrote above because the preaching of these is consistent all through the scriptures.

Fvckyouall:


Is that the topic of our discussion? Would he pick you?

Sure it is. I am asking this based on your response. So, i want to know where you belong in the categories you explained.

You have pointed to me those who cant see/meet or choose by Jesus. And also pointed to the reasons they wont be choose.

I will appreciate your answer. So, i ask again.

Will you be chosen when Jesus comes based on all the requirements you have listed earlier?

Fvckyouall:


It seems you are not well vast in the understanding of the scriptures

Okay Sir
I will take note.

Fvckyouall:


Why did you think Jesus said that statement to the pharesees, they they would watch the harlots and task collectors enter his kingdom before them. Some believers we have today don't act/understand/behave according to what Jesus taught.
If God could pick Saul(Paul) over many apostles or Matthew or even the thief that was nailed to the cross along with him(who was an unbeliver)do you think he would pass out on an unbeliever with a beautiful heart over to a believer who looks down on others?

@bolded you don't really understand God that's why. When Jesus says all those who believe in him will be saved, believing in Jesus isn't just acknowledging his existence cause even science proves he existed believing in him is to follow after hat he did how he lived and how he interacted with people, how he loved others, if a believer can't do this then of what good is he/she. If a unbeliever were to have a heart of Gold and love others like Jesus did but couldn't be a Christian due to some reasons he has already subconsciously believed in jesus. And I don't think that person would miss salvation.
However this isn't an excuse for believers to sin or become unbelievers cause it's only rational for believers to be judged by their beliefs.
We can never truly understand God or how he is going to judge us, he told us how we can make it to his kingdom but never how we were going to be judged we can only try and speculate

By the way, just a quick question.

Will Jesus select/choose you when he comes?

Fvckyouall:


Why did you think Jesus said that statement to the pharesees, they they would watch the harlots and task collectors enter his kingdom before them. Some believers we have today don't act/understand/behave according to what Jesus taught.
If God could pick Saul(Paul) over many apostles or Matthew or even the thief that was nailed to the cross along with him(who was an unbeliver)do you think he would pass out on an unbeliever with a beautiful heart over to a believer who looks down on others?

@bolded you don't really understand God that's why. When Jesus says all those who believe in him will be saved, believing in Jesus isn't just acknowledging his existence cause even science proves he existed believing in him is to follow after hat he did how he lived and how he interacted with people, how he loved others, if a believer can't do this then of what good is he/she. If a unbeliever were to have a heart of Gold and love others like Jesus did but couldn't be a Christian due to some reasons he has already subconsciously believed in jesus. And I don't think that person would miss salvation.
However this isn't an excuse for believers to sin or become unbelievers cause it's only rational for believers to be judged by their beliefs.
We can never truly understand God or how he is going to judge us, he told us how we can make it to his kingdom but never how we were going to be judged we can only try and speculate

Did you actually read and see all these from the Bible? I mean the Christian Bible? Bro, you are mixing a lot together.

Well, the God that the Bible show to us is a God that has a stable, consistent character and actions, not the one you presented above with a random, unstable attitude. He can be predicted because His words are His bounds.

I am not sure you are seeing this same God from the scriptures. If we cant know God (actions, desires, expectations) from His word, then we are of all men most miserable.

Also the Jesus you presented, looks more like a Philanthropist than a Savior of the World

I believe further and careful study will help.

Fvckyouall:


Yes I do

Okay Bro.
Why then do you now say the below especially the bold.

The answer is nothing, christains aren't better or worse than an unbeliver. Any evil an average person commits a Christian can also commit. I always say this in the right conditions everyone has the probability of being a killer, thief, rapist, even a Hitler, we just pray we never get to be in that condition.
We would be surprised when God comes he may pick chronic unbelivers instead of some christains so no one is better than any

The scriptures are clear on God's mind about believer and unbeliever. Saying God will desire an unbeliever above a believer is like saying the word of God is not true. By extension it is like questioning the essence of preaching the gospel to save the unbeliever since your assertion presents God as not being definite enough in his word and can have random behaviour and choices.

You will see from His words (scriptures), God's true mind for humanity and eternity explained. Hence we know his choice when he comes. Or which father hates his children and love his enemy's own.

Myer:

This is true of any one devoted to any religion. Not Christianity alone. Muslims, Jews, Traditionalists and even Chinese Monks.

I've met devout Muslims who are more pious than most pastors, whose humility and generosity and hospitality leaves one speechless.

Biblically, a Christian should manifest the life of Christ both in speech, conduct, spiritual gifts and fruit of the spirit. However we observe this is hardly so.

In fact some business owners don't even want to hire Christians because some Christians profess righteousness only to end up embezzling the company funds. Cos they believe all they have to do is ask for forgiveness in the name of Jesus.lol

All these you listed here aren't peculiar to our days. Even in Bible days, days of the apostles we have it. The church or Christianity is not for perfect people, it is for perfecting people.

An imperfect man comes into Christ made perfect in Spirit, commence a learning and training in faith to grow thereby by working on his imperfect actions to perfecting his acts and actions.

It has been like that since the days of Peter, Paul, James etc, you will also see it in their writings if you observe them well.

Moat times, looking around for perfect people in church is a practice of dishonesty and ignorance of the word. Raising people to perfection in church is what the Bible teaches and should be our practice.
Ephes 4:11-15, 1 Peter 1:23-25, 1 Peter 2:1-2, 2 Timothy 3:15-17, James 1:13-25.

Therefore, Christianity provides both righteousness and an education unto right living. The gap between these two are as wide as the Pacific Ocean, hence the reason why teaching and discipleship must be the center focus of any Christian gathering as seen in the early church.

Myer:


Our disagreement on this issue is not whether or not the new covenant was already prophesied ibefore Christ. That's obvious.
It is simply that you do not agree that there's a difference in the old covenant and the new.

First there are conditions that followed the old covenant viz;
-being a Jew
-becoming circumcised.
-only priests could enter the inner courts.
-the Laws of Moses and the sacrifices that follow.
-tithes,
-Judgment by the hands of elders.
-An eye for an eye, etc

In the new covenant after the promise was fulfilled, all these were scrapped.
-Everyone including Gentiles and Jews are God's people.
-No circumcision needed. Only circumcision of the heart (broken spirit).
-Everyone is a royal priesthood and there's no more physical holy of holies.
-Law of the Spirit only and Christ paid the ultimate sacrifice once and for all.
-Cheerful giving.
-Judgment is of God.
-Forgiveness, etc

Just to mention few.
So the old testament is a background to the new testament. A shadow of what now is in the new covenant. The difference is i.portant that here's how Jesus explained it to Nicodemus and used the great John the baptist of the old covenant to the least in this new covenant.

Matthew 11:11
Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

John 3:3-6
Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is nborn oagain2 he cannot psee the kingdom of God.” 4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born qof water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 rThat which is born of the flesh is sflesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

The differences are so much it makes one wonder if it is the same God of Old testament that is in New testament?

If you still don't see these differences, then we can only agree to disagree.

Bros, you aren't reading my post o or at least you aren't speaking about what I wrote. My argument is not what you presented there.


Remember where we started from.
YOU SAID THE OLD TESTAMENT WRITINGS (Genesis to Malachi) IS WHAT IS REFER TO AS THE OLD COVENANT, HENCE IT IS OLD.

You referred that there is no difference between what is called the old covenant and the books of the Old Testament. Thereby calling the writings of Genesis to Malachi the old. You pointed out that the usage of old testament/covenant in NT verses is referring to Genesis to Malachi. That as such they are Old.

Now read the summary of all my responses below.

Does the Bible teaches about Old and New Covenant? Yes.
Do I believe it? Yes (I have said this thrice earlier).

But is Genesis to Malachi the Old covenant? I mean, when I read the word Old covenant/testament in NT, is it reffering to Genesis to Malachi? NO.

So, this is where we differ.

I told you that the Old covenant is not talking about a writing, neither is it referring to Genesis to Malachi but specific events during the Exodus of Israel. The Old covenant simply is God's agreement with Israel to bless the whole earth through them, to inherit the earth. This is the covenant. And I said this is not referring to Genesis to Malachi as a writing. This is your disagreement.

Your claim is that Genesis to Malachi is now done away with.

And my claim is that scripture is scripture, no part of the scripture is old or new based on covenant. The scripture is not a or the covenants but a book that shows us God's covenant from creation till eternity. Hence, we will read from scriptures those covenants. But the books of the scriptures aren't the covenant.

I will hope you get my point now.

If you still read that word Old and New Covenant in the Bible and your mind goes to Genesis to Malachi or Matthew to Revelation books as the covenant, your interpretation will fail. You must look out for, search the scriptures to unveil the events and acts that the scripture is referring to as Old or New Covenant. You will see them in events documented in the scriptures.


So, there are new and old covenants events WRITTEN in the scriptures, but they aren't referring to Genesis to Malachi as Old covenant, nor does it refer to Mathew to Revelation as New Covenant.

Scriptures must be read and treated together as God's word and no part of it is Old. This is how it was read and treated by the prophets, Jesus and apostles. No part is old, it's a continuous revelation of the dealings of God with man.

Fvckyouall:


The answer is nothing, christains aren't better or worse than an unbeliver. Any evil an average person commits a Christian can also commit. I always say this in the right conditions everyone has the probability of being a killer, thief, rapist, even a Hitler, we just pray we never get to be in that condition.
We would be surprised when God comes he may pick chronic unbelivers instead of some christains so no one is better than anyy

Good evening and trust you are good.
If I may ask, do you believe in the scriptures (Christianity)?

Myer:


I asked you a question, what does the new covenant mean to you cos I believe your answer to this question will settle this confusion.

I have actually answers this severally in my write up.

New Covenant as called by the Scriptures, is the covenant of God in Christ. And it simply means THE GIVING OF THE SPIRIT.

Note that calling it New is not about the time frame but because there exist old that was compromised (the covenant of God with Israel) by the recipient: Israel. Hence, the word Old and New is in relation to that.

Gal 3:14

14 He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.

Notice that the word there is MIGHT RECEIVE THE PROMISED SPIRIT not promise of the spirit.

Genesis 12:1-3

1 Now the Lord had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee: 2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing. 3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

This is the same thing promised to Abraham.
Notice verse 3.

In thee shall families of the earth be blessed

This is what Paul called Abraham blessing in Galatians 3:14 (the spirit).

Observe that when God gave Abraham this covenant he wasn't a Jew or Israelite. So that statement "in the shall the families of the earth be blessed" will refer to

1. Israel as the chosen executor of the covenant
2. All Gentile nations.

Hence everyone is captured under Abraham's blessing and covenant.

So, it's in Abraham that the whole world (Gentiles included now) is blessed and this is not talking about land or cars or houses. But the Spirit.

Hence, the covenant fulfilled in Christ is what God promised Abraham which is to happen through Israel, to be executed by Israel. Israel failed in this hence, that agreement of God with Israel has to be terminated. This is what you called Old.

That same covenant with Abraham now has a new mediator, executor, which is Jesus Christ.
This is why it's called the New Covenant. Because the Old was done away with.

So in reality, there is only one covenant in the Bible per say and that's the promise of God to Abraham, which is the promised spirit, the receiving of the spirit even unto Gentiles.

When the Bible use the word Old or New Covenant it is actually in relation to the executors which are Israel (Old because it failed and terminated), Jesus (New because there was a former, that was terminated).

Ezek 36:26-27
26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. 28 And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God.

The promised spirit. Same.

Heb 8:7-9

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. 8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: 9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

Observe that it affirms to you the reason for the New Covenant. It's because the first was faulty.


Joel 2:28
And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:


In Acts 2, Peter quoted the same on the day of Pentecost when the spirit was given.


Hence, firstly, if you see the promise in the covenant beyond the giving of the Spirit, you are going to have issues with understanding the covenant.

Secondly, if you see the covenant given to Israel as different from that given to Abraham or that we have in Christ now, then there is also an issue. The singular plan of God for humanity is the giving of the Spirit, the Spirit of God. That is why in all OT you will find the word, My Spirit, God's Spirit, Spirit of God has a promise to man. This refer to the same thing in NT that is now called Spirit of Christ, Spirit of the Son etc why? The Son fulfilled the promised Spirit for man.

---

Observe, you will see the this happened (the giving, supply of the spirit) in OT as temporary act.

Prophets of Old only gave God's utterance when the spirit descend on them, but temporal.

Numbers 11:16
16 The Lord answered Moses, “Bring Me 70 men from Israel known to you as elders and officers of the people. Take them to the tent of meeting and have them stand there with you. 17 Then I will come down and speak with you there. I will take some of the Spirit who is on you and put the Spirit on them They will help you bear the burden of the people, so that you do not have to bear it by yourself.

Observe that, a temporal act to remind Moses of God's covenant of the spirit.

Read on
24 Moses went out and told the people the words of the Lord. He brought 70 men from the elders of the people and had them stand around the tent. 25 Then the Lord descended in the cloud and spoke to him. [i]He took some of the Spirit that was on Moses and placed the Spirit on the 70 elders. As the Spirit rested on them, they prophesied, but they never did it again. [/i]

They receive the Spirit, they prophesied.


Now note what happened after

26 Two men had remained in the camp, one named Eldad and the other Medad; the Spirit rested on them—they were among those listed, but had not gone out to the tent—and they prophesied in the camp. 27 A young man ran and reported to Moses, “Eldad and Medad are prophesying in the camp.”

Two men not part of those outside.


[b]28[/b] Joshua son of Nun, assistant to Moses since his youth,[j] responded, “Moses, my lord, stop them!”


Please observe Moses response.

29 But Moses asked him, “Are you jealous on my account? If only all the Lord’s people were prophets and the Lord would place His Spirit on them! ” 30 Then Moses returned to the camp along with the elders of Israel.

Moses spoke the Lord's mind: that the mind of God is for all of his people receive the Spirit. This is the covenant and this is what is fulfilled in Christ. This is the mind and plan of God.

So, Old covenant is not referring to writing of the scriptures but Israel failure to work in God's agreement. That is what makes it Old. The writings of the scriptures is what shows us all that transpired within those period. So in it I will see the Old covenant events and also in it I will see Christ explained.

Notice that all of the Apostles teaching were from the writings you called Old.

John 5:39
39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and [b]they are they which testify of me [/b]
Like o told you before, when ever you read the word SCRIPTURES from the Bible it simply means the OT writings, no NT writings then. Jesus said, his testimony are in the OT writings. So, can we find the New Covenant in OT writings? Yes but as a promises.


Jesus and his Apostle preached solely from the OT and they preached the following:

- Christ redemption from OT
- Christ death and resurrection from OT
- Spirit of Adoption from OT
- Gift of the Spirit from OT
-Philip preached Christ to the Ethiopian Eunuch from OT alone.
Etc.

Are this not new Covenant realities? Yet preached from OT.

Hence, does the OT still relevant to Christianity today? Yes. Absolutely. You can't even understand the scriptures without the understanding of OT.

Therefore, books in OT must be read as much as those in NT but all in the light of the New Covenant, the Spirit of Christ.

Myer:


Let me share an illustration;

Take Nigeria for example, our traditional/indigenous religions had their own laws and practices, they had been living by for ages.

Let's say suddenly an educated traditionalist decides to document these practices iand write them in a book that was published in the year 2020.

Does that mean that traditional religion started in year 2020?
Cos from your explanation, that because the books of the new testament were written 50 years after Christ does not make them new covenant right?


How then do you explain the message of what was documented informing us that the death of Chris ushered in both a new covenant and the Holyspirit dispensation which were not in the old covenant.

Jesus Christ brought the new covenant. John 1:17.
Whether it was documented 1000 years after him, doesn't negate the fact that a new covenant was given through him.

I asked you a question, what does the new covenant mean to you cos I believe your answer to this question will settle this confusion.

Good morning
You are contradicting yourself now.

Firstly, a covenant is not a tradition or culture. A covenant is an agreement. This can result into cultural modification, likewise a tradition can evolve from it. But note this word again. A COVENANT IS AN AGREEMENT. A covenant is not a process, it's a promise, and agreement which can them take process to fulfil or achieve.

You seems not to get the meaning of that word right.

Let me ask you this:

The covenant God had with Noah is it Old or New?

The covenant God had with Abraham is it Old or New?

Myer:


First let me start by reminding you that the present book called the bible was canonised.
However it was canonised to reflect to a great degree the timeline and journey from the Old to the new covenant (testament).

Those who canonised the bible did their research before separating the bibke into Old testament and New testament.

Saying new testament/covenant is no differential from the Old means not only did Jesus' death achieve nothing, but also the early Christians (apostles of the new covenant) were persecuted and martyred by the Jews (custodians of the old covenant).

One major difference between the old testament and the new testament is the Laws of Moses being replaced by the Law of the Spirit.
In fact Apostle Paul in His epistles condemns any bekiever who still practises the laws. He called such accursed. Galatians 3:1-14

At this juncture i believe you should explain what you understand by the new covenant to help me better understand your position cos I really don't see it.

Can i ask you,

When Jesus died and rose, there was not single book of what we called New Testament is written then, So please, what covenant was in operation then, since the New Covenant is not available and the Old is now Old (going by your explanation that books are the covenants)? If you take the writings as the covenant, so were they still under Old covenant even after Jesus resurrection? Bear in mind that the first book of the NT is written 50 years after. So was the covenant suspended within that period that no one has penned down all the events as scriptures?


The scriptures is not a covenant, it is a documents that shows you God's dealing with man. It only documents the covenants which you read today to learn and to know God's purpose for man: Christ.

I am avoiding having to write a long explanation on this,

Myer:


First let me start by reminding you that the present book called the bible was canonised.
However it was canonised to reflect to a great degree the timeline and journey from the Old to the new covenant (testament).

Those who canonised the bible did their research before separating the bibke into Old testament and New testament.

Saying new testament/covenant is no differential from the Old means not only did Jesus' death achieve nothing, but also the early Christians (apostles of the new covenant) were persecuted and martyred by the Jews (custodians of the old covenant).

One major difference between the old testament and the new testament is the Laws of Moses being replaced by the Law of the Spirit.
In fact Apostle Paul in His epistles condemns any bekiever who still practises the laws. He called such accursed. Galatians 3:1-14

At this juncture i believe you should explain what you understand by the new covenant to help me better understand your position cos I really don't see it.

Let me ask you a question.

Is Psalm 23 (Old covenant) a Law? what about the book of Proverbs? is it the Law (Old covenant)? hope you know they were in what you called Old Testament?

I think you will need to re-read my two post earlier, not sure you have seen what i explained there.

The issue is you are using the word OT and NT to apply to what it doesn't mean. Even you, if you listen to your language you will see where you are wrong. E.g. you are referring to Law of Moses as Genesis to Malachi. Is this what the Bible called Law of Moses?

Luke 24

27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Called the scriptures, writings of Moses and Prophets not Old Covenant/Testament

44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

Same here. Law of Moses, Prophets, Psalms... this is the scriptures not called Old scriptures.

You see how Jesus classified the scriptures? This is what you can find in the Bible, not calling books a covenant.

Like i asked you is Genesis Law of Moses? Have you ever read Law of Moses from Genesis before?

I still marveled that you are still calling a part of the scriptures old. That is not a language you will find anywhere in the scriptures.

What was old (covenant with Israel) was documented as part of the scriptures which you can read mainly in Exodus - Deut. This is clear.

uchkochi:
WHY SPEAKING IN TONGUES IS NOT WALKING IN THE SPIRIT.

Walking in the spirit is the only way to overcome the lust of the flesh. Walking in the spirit is not speaking in tongues. No wonder many people who commits sin still blast in tongues. As a matter of fact tongue speaking does not guarantee heaven.

Walking in the spirit is essentially living a life of total obedience to God's word. Walking in the spirit is spending time with God every morning in prayers and the word. Walking in the spirit does not mean quietness on the outside but quietness on the inside. The flesh will always do what God hates. It loves displeasing God. But when you begin to walk in the spirit, you put the flesh under.

It is not the gifts of the Holy Spirit that takes one to heaven but the fruit of the Holy Spirit. 1st Corinthians 12:8-11. Galatians 5:22-23.

Walking in the spirit is manifesting the fruit of the Holy Spirit which includes; love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gen­tleness, goodness, faith, meek­ness,temperance. With these at work in you sin will never be found in you. Receive the grace required in Jesus name.

OMEGA GOSPEL NETWORK.(CYBER/MOBILE CHURCH) +2348034868232

@uchkochi

Please do you speak in tongues?

Myer:


I find your writings very well articulated and presented.
However, it does not cloud my judgment not to see the truth or lies in them.

At this point, I really wish to understand your point, and i hope you won't disappoint. (just couldn't resist the rhyme.lol)
You seem to disagree with the writer in Hebrews if your submission is that there is no difference between the old and the new testament/covenant.
Regardless of the documentation, do you believe there was an old testament after which Christ ushered in a new testament?

I ask cos it would seem that the whole purpose of the birth, death and resurrection of Christ wasn't even necessary since the old covenant is to be continued.

I believe you need to be less closed-minded in order to both acknowledge and appreciate that the birth, death and resurrection of Christ paved the way for a new covenant. The more pertinent question is whether the old covenant was abolished or parts of it yet remains in the new.

Good.
Firstly, I am not contradicting the Hebrew writer, I am actually affirming what he wrote via my first explanation


Now....
For the purpose of discussion I will use these terms:

I will refer to what we call the Old Testament Bible as the Writings of the Prophets and I will refer to what we call the New Testament Bible the Writings of the Apostles . Like I said this is just for learning and explanation sake.

So, to your question.

1. Do we have the Old covenant? That is, a promise, covenanted event that God had with Israelite? Yes we do. And the Bible refer to it as the Old Covenant or Old Testament

Does this refers to the writings of the prophets (Genesis to Malachi)? No. The old covenant and it's events were revealed via the prophets writings to us but the covenant is not the writings.

The writings is to show us what God did with the fathers of old which is beyond just the covenant with Israel. God had covenant with Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob. These were never refered to as Old all through the scriptures. In fact the Bible called the covenant with Abraham a covenant of the spirit. Yet these were written in the Writings of the Prophets (what we called the OT) .

You must see it that the covenant aren't writings of the scriptures but promises that happened in events, spoken and then later documented which we can read in the scriptures.


2. Do we have the new covenant? Sure. As pointed out earlier, it's the covenant of the Spirit in Christ Jesus in which we stand today as believers.

But is this referring to the Writings of the Apostles? Not at all.

The writings reveals that covenant to us, it's in the writings that we understood what happened, the events, the promises, the actors, the recipients are all revealed in the Writings of the Apostles. But the writings aren't the covenant.


Take note of below
Do we have the new covenant before the very first book of the (what we refer to as NT) was written?
I mean we know that the new covenant was initiated in the death of Christ. But the very first book of the NT was not completed until 50 years after Christ death and the first book is not even any of the 4 gospels but Paul's writings. The very first gospel (Mark) was written about 70 years after Jesus.

So we ask, was there a new covenant in operation even before the first books of NT were written? Sure. Then that is to show you that the documentation (the Bible) of the events of the covenant cannot be called the covenant. The reason it is called Scriptures (what is written).

What then is the purpose of the Scriptures?
The scriptures reveals the dealings of God with humanity in Christ. It's in this you have and know

The creation and God's purpose for it
The fall
Noah's covenant
Abraham Promises/covenant
The Exodus
Israel Covenant
The Acts of the Prophets
You will find rebellion in it
You will find the righteous in it
The birth, work and suffering of Christ
Work of the Spirit and walk in the Spirit
The Acts of the early Church and their practices
The exploit and suffering of the Apostles
The final destination of man and humanity

In all, the core of the whole scriptures is to find righteousness through faith in Christ Jesus in reading from Genesis to Revelation. 2Tim 3:15-16.

Note that when Paul mentioned scriptures here in the above verse he was referring to what we call OT because the NT was yet to be written or called scriptures as at when he said this. Yet he said Genesis to Malachi is able to make thee wise through faith in Christ Jesus.


So, in conclusion,
When you read or see the word covenant in the Bible, it's just part of the dealings of God with man to save and redeem man. It's not referring to writing of the Bible. If you observe the said covenant is always associated to events and explained in events when used.


So you must try to keep your mind away from thinking the Bible is talking about the books of the Bible when you read/hear Old Testament/Covenant or New Testament/Covenant.


You may not agree with the following but it's the truth:
that your (our) knowledge of calling a part of the scriptures old and another part new was actually influenced by translators' segmentation of the Bible into two. If you haven't heard or seen that word before, you will never have such notion nor see it intended in the scriptures if you are given a whole Bible to read. All the texts of the scriptures are clear.

Myer:


How else can a Christian share in the glory of Christ except through persecution? Lol.

The challenge is we have seen God continue to prosper nominal Christians that devout Christians start to question if the persecution route is worth it.
Trust me, there was a time I was ready to go to Okija Shine, Sambisa forest and even outside the shores of Nigeria just to be propagate the gospel and even be martyred for his name sake.

But with time I realised I was no different from an extremist Muslim who is likewise prepared to be blown up to further the Islamic cause.

Well there is a difference in expectation afterwards when blown up. Lol. Am sure you will be denied the 70 candlelight

Myer:


What does the phrase New testament mean?
Let me rather answer you with scriptures.

HEBREWS 8:6-13
But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.

For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord.

For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”

In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.


John 13:34
A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another.

Observe properly, that the word covenant was not used loosely as we use it this days.

When that word is used as New/Old in the Bible it is always explained.

Observe the verse you quoted.

HEBREWS 8:6-13
But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.

Verse 6 used the word promises. That means we must trace what that means. When, how, where did God made his promises. At what point in time? Was it an event or a writing or both.

There are two key events in OT that defines God's promises

1. To Abraham
2. To Israelite.

And this promises were firstly seen in events and documented as scriptures. So when the scriptures speaks about old promises, that won't refer to a writings but an event in time that was now documented in writings (scriptures).

E.g The promise to Abraham cannot be called the Book of Genesis but that promise was documented in the book of Genesis, but the book is not a covenant as much as the promise to Abraham was a covenant.


Observe the next verse

For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord.

This explains when and what is the covenant. He said the Old covenant was made: to who?

To fathers of the house of Israel and Judah

Where? Observe what he said below:

day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt.

Very specific.
The covenant as in an event. We can see this events documented in Exodus, Deuteronomy. Note that there is different between documentation of the events and the events itself. He called the events in those period (exodus from Egypt) a covenant. In fact this events wasn't in Genesis, It was documented in Exodus-Deut.

So, the old covenant has a recipient - Those coming from Egypt. In fact it is clear from above that God didn't make the covenant with everyone but specifically "their fathers".


So what is called the new covenant in the scriptures?
Now observe next verse.

For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”

He didn't say New scriptures. A new covenant, not a writing but a promise, an event of actions and plans. What we have as scriptures will be the explanation of these events


So, Genesis to Malachi documented this covenant, a promise of God made during the Exodus. The documentation which is what we called now the Old Testament (Scriptures) is not the covenant made, but gives us the explanation of what transpired to learn from. The covenant is a promise.

Note that God firstly made a covenant to Abraham. You can't called that covenant book of Genesis just because it was documented in Genesis. The covenant with Abraham is an event, a promise which we can read and learn from Genesis. Same with the promise he made to Israel, it's a covenant, now documented in the books we called OT today.

Lastly observe the verse below.

In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

So what is the new covenant? It's not Mathew to Revelation but the covenant of the Spirit in Christ Jesus.

Where can we find this documented? All through the scriptures, not just what we called NT

When was it fulfilled? In the events of his death, burial, resurrection and the giving of the Spirit.

Where is this event documented for us to read? In Matthew to Revelation.

So you must know the distinction between events called covenant and the writings that documented the events.

---

So going back to where we stated.

The word covenant was never used loosely in the scriptures and was never used to mean the writings of the scriptures. The idea of calling a part of the scriptures Old Testament was influenced by translators who trying to help in reading of the Bible decided to demarcate into two and called one Old and another New. It was never from the scriptures and this have not helped many in proper bible study and understanding.

Infact, it is funny how translator called Matthew - John New Testament, when the scriptures shows clearly that there cant be a new testament when the testator is still alive. Jesus was with humanity in all the 4 gospels, so why is it called Old? But the reality is this is not even the issue, the Bible was never referred to as old in any part or in full.

Doesnt the bible contains the documentation of the events of the old covenant? Yes
Is any part of the bible now become old covenant or testament? No.

The scriptures are scriptures, in its completeness we find God's work in Christ for man, in man and through man.
So, that means, no part of this must be treated as old or new, as the word of God are always new and abide forever.

Myer:


On this we certainly agree.
So much noise online.
The world yearns for the word of life, not words of argument and egomania as is common on here.lol

Your absence was truly felt. Hope you brought a fresh doze of anointing like the Apostle Paul after his return from Arabia.

And then be persecuted like Paul

Myer:


It's been aeons. I had feared you have been caught up in the spirit and translated to Sambisa to convert Shekau and his cohorts.lol

There are more work on ground than online Sir, especially in silencing the voice and influence of the pandemic.

Am sure you have been good.

Myer:


You mean there is no difference between the old and the new testament?

Absolutely a continuation. All that is written in New is taken directly from the Old. No new revelation. Until you see the scriptures as a whole and start reading and understanding it as such there are alot that won't be understood.

Note
No writer of the new testament has a Bible study beyond reading the old. When you read the word scriptures in New Testament, that solely refer to the OT (Genesis - Malachi) in their time not 4 gospels or epistles, yet they communicated all you read today in NT from it.

Paul read OT and taught salvation, faith in Christ. Jesus read OT and taught redemption, grace and God's mercy. Same as other writers. Their teaching is from old.

So, until you start seeing what they saw in OT and start understanding what those who heard them understood, you will not have full appreciation of the whole scripture one.

Myer:


Of course I'm not speaking merely of life's challenges, that's a given also.
What I mean is as regards struggles with sin.
A Christian just like other non-christians is commiting one sin or the other.
Otherwise how do you explain Nigeria having almost the highest number of Christians in the world yet the most corrupt country in the world.

You like dropping statistics without verification. You should ensure you are talking based on reality.

Also, what is the correlation between having high number of Christian and governance? Does the government of Nigeria uses scriptures as constitution. Or do you use scriptures in police station or court as constitution? There is no correlation in this at all.

Myer:


But it is not supposed to be limited to the word alone. What if there was no bible?

The earlier disciples were led by the Holyspirit right?

Bro you are looking for something else. You need to slow down now. Really really need to.

Myer:


But the problem is God doesn't even speak to Christians too.
At least if God speaks to you, you can be different from others but take the Covid19 pandemic for example, no one knew about it talkless of what to do. Even Pastors where caught unawares talkless of ordinary christian members.

How did you know this. Am sure you didn't interview all Christians in the whole world. The challenge with computer age is that the user don't know life exist outside forum and social media. You need to start seeing beyond the letters on screens.

Myer:


You quoted from old testament scriptures, that's more of Jews than Christians. What is the difference as someone in the new covenant, so to say.

The old testament as you called it, is as both relevant to Christianity as much as the New Testament. There will never be new without the old. So actually, not old per say. Scripture is scripture.

Myer:


You seem not to understand the post.
The person Jesus is a given, you can understand him through the bible.

The question is how come there seems to be no difference between a Christian and others.
A Christian just like other struggles with all what the bible calls sins.
A Christian like others struggles with the challenges of life.
A Christian is even more likely to be consumed by spiritual forces simply because he believes in them.

What then separates Christians from others?

.
Bro, you still have somethings mixed up. And I feel that is what is informing your actions and thought.

Note that
1. Salvation in Christ or Christianity never promised a life without temptation. Temptation is not sin, and the fact that you can be tempted shows your humanity. What Christianity gives you is strength, hope and leading to be able to overcome this. Will some fall in this? Yes. Is it right? No. Can I live without being tempted? No. As much as you have desires, temptation will abound. Yet the scriptures provide a way out of this always.

2. Christianity or Salvation never promised you a life free of challenges. Anywhere that is preached is a false gospel. In fact it promised you a more challenging life for the gospel sake. So, can I prevent challenges? No. Do I have the power to overcome these challenges? Yes.

---

So, you must firstly know in reality the gospel you recover and believed. This days there are many ANOTHER GOSPEL flying around. A proper understanding of what the Bible teaches and offers is key.

Myer:
The whole idea of Christianity is all about how Christians are to be identifiable by the grace of God upon them, their relationship with the Holyspirit and living in victory over enemies and challenges through faith in Christ.

I have been a Christian but this was not my reality. Which made me question the bible.

Recently a christian pastor murdered his own wife just like an unbeliever could. Which makes me question, is there even any difference between a Christian and others?

Bro, trust you are doing great. Longtime.

I am sure you know this answer yourself, that Christianity has its own identity saviour and traditions. And our feelings or experience can't change that. It's the Christian culture that should change our thinking.