₦airaland Forum

sammy329:
Romans 3:28 (KJV) Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Romans 4:5-8 (KJV) But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

Yea it's by faith alone, but the believer will good exhibit good works because of the indwelling of the spirit within him.

James 2:14-26
What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds?
Can such faith save him?
Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food.
If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it?
In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.

You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder.

You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless 
Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?

You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend.

You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.
In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction?
As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.



That's what I meant by the scripture contradicting itself.
You have rightly shared scriptural reference that Faith alone justifies the believer. Roman's 3:28

But I have likewise rightly shared scriptural reference that Faith without works is dead. James 2:26

Myer:
James 2:14-26
What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds?
Can such faith save him?
Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food.
If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it?
In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.

You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder.

You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless 
Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?

You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend.

You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.
In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction?
As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.



That's what I meant by the scripture contradicting itself.
You have rightly shared scriptural reference that Faith alone justifies the believer. Roman's 3:28

But I have likewise rightly shared scriptural reference that Faith without works is dead. James 2:26

Paul's writings are renowned for emphasizing that we are saved by grace, through faith, and without any contribution from our good deeds. James does not dispute this; rather, this entire passage is James's discussion of what kind of faith is "saving faith." James's point is that faith alone saves, but the faith which saves is the kind which leads to good works. That's why James was talking about helping brother in need from Jam. 2:1-10. Paul emphasizes our eternal salvation in God, James highlights how our actions prove the nature of our faith.
The fact that these two men are in agreement is shown in other similarities. For example, both Paul and James quote Genesis 15:6. Paul quotes it in Romans 4:3 as part of his teaching that salvation is available only through faith. James quotes it here in support of his teaching that genuine faith always leads to good works. James and Paul present arguments which do not contradict, but rather complement each other.

James 2 has caused a lot of controversy in the body of Christ, even Martin Luther rejected the book of James.

sammy329:
Paul's writings are renowned for emphasizing that we are saved by grace, through faith, and without any contribution from our good deeds. James does not dispute this; rather, this entire passage is James's discussion of what kind of faith is "saving faith." James's point is that faith alone saves, but the faith which saves is the kind which leads to good works. That's why James was talking about helping brother in need from Jam. 2:1-10. Paul emphasizes our eternal salvation in God, James highlights how our actions prove the nature of our faith.
The fact that these two men are in agreement is shown in other similarities. For example, both Paul and James quote Genesis 15:6. Paul quotes it in Romans 4:3 as part of his teaching that salvation is available only through faith. James quotes it here in support of his teaching that genuine faith always leads to good works. James and Paul present arguments which do not contradict, but rather complement each other.

You know how to defend the bible, I give you that.
But you can't deny the obvious and blatant contradiction here.

sammy329:
Paul's writings are renowned for emphasizing that we are saved by grace, through faith, and without any contribution from our good deeds. James does not dispute this; rather, this entire passage is James's discussion of what kind of faith is "saving faith." James's point is that faith alone saves, but the faith which saves is the kind which leads to good works. That's why James was talking about helping brother in need from Jam. 2:1-10. Paul emphasizes our eternal salvation in God, James highlights how our actions prove the nature of our faith.
The fact that these two men are in agreement is shown in other similarities. For example, both Paul and James quote Genesis 15:6. Paul quotes it in Romans 4:3 as part of his teaching that salvation is available only through faith. James quotes it here in support of his teaching that genuine faith always leads to good works. James and Paul present arguments which do not contradict, but rather complement each other.

God bless you more for your scriptural sagacity.

Kobojunkie:
Salvation does guarantee Eternal life, but that same eternal life can either be spent in Heaven or Hell.

In essence, the one who will end up in Hell when Jesus Christ returns are also saved since they too believe in Jesus Christ and as a result have eternal life....Salvation does not grant entry into Heaven, and this is according to the teachings of Jesus Christ Himself.

Don't say what u don't know and stop twisting the Bible. How can salvation give u an eternal life spent in hell? What then were u salvaged from initially? Read ur Bible well pls. Read Romana 10:8- the end

Mailthaddeus:
Don't say what u don't know and stop twisting the Bible. How can salvation give u an eternal life spent in hell? What then were u salvaged from initially? Read ur Bible well pls. Read Romana 10:8- the end

You need to yourself, read the Bible with your own eyes, ears, mind and brain, abandoning the filter that was fed you by your so-called pastors and preachers... Men whom Jesus Christ warned you against..who come with doctrines and traditions that amount to lies and nothing else.

Before Jesus Christ, there was no eternal life or afterlife. Jesus Christ came gifting those who believed in Him(not unbelievers) with Eternal life to all of them, promising Heaven to those who obeyed Him and Hell to those who refuse to obey His commandments.
Here's another obvious clue. Only those with eternal life can withstand damnation for eternity in Hell.

That you do not know this means only one thing... You have yourself never actually read your gospels for yourself but have instead been relying on the interpretations fed you by false teachers who come to you in the name of God.
Pick up an easy to read translation of the Bible today and read the Gospel of John beginning from chapter 1 through 15, and you will find that the Truth has been in front of you all this while.

sammy329:
You need to familiarise yourself with the epistle, I see that you are knowledgeable but you need understand the epistles, for better understanding of the scriptures.

Rather than reading the letters of Paul, learn from the source, Jesus Christ, who's accounts are recorded in the Gospels.

sammy329:
let me say it in simple terms. Use at least two scriptures to corroborate your point in Matt. 10

You are still not making any sense. Matthew 10 is Jesus Christ Himself, the truth of God telling you a fact/Truth - an unconditoned truth - An axiom. Why do you keep suggesting it should be "corroborated"? Instead, you are meant to use it as base truth for corroborating other claims made by His followers and any other. For example, you validate what you read in Paul's letters against what Jesus Christ said, and not the other way around.

Kobojunkie:
Rather than reading the letters of Paul, learn from the source, Jesus Christ, who's accounts are recorded in the Gospels.

The letters of Paul and other epistle testify of Jesus Christ.

Kobojunkie:
Rather than reading the letters of Paul, learn from the source, Jesus Christ, who's accounts are recorded in the Gospels.

Your theology is very weird, I don't even know where to start. You are so bold in your error

There's no way someone with eternal life, the life of God ends up in Hell. So spreading error, what you are saying is HSN (High Sounding Nonsense).

Myer:
John 17:12
Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.

Clearly he lost Judas.

Well, what does it mean to loose a one in His case?

Judas believed in Jesus Christ so Judas was saved (everyone who believes as He stipulated Is save and granted eternal life). So from that we know that Judas belonged to Jesus Christ. In John 17, Jesus Christ did not say that Judas was taken from Him/stolen, only that He was lost and when you loose something, you do not forfeit ownership as a result.
So we need to investigate this a bit more to better understand what Jesus Christ meant when He said He lost Judas.

I am of the belief that what Jesus Christ in fact meant was that Judas was the only one who would not make it into Heaven with Him - he was instead lost to the other side -Hell.

sammy329:
Your theology is very weird, I don't even know where to start. You are so bold in your error

The reason it confuses you is because it is not based on the doctrines and readitions of men that Jesus Christ warned you against but instead a direct copy of what Jesus Christ Himself taught in the Gospels.

You claim there is some error but you have not once been able to show this so-called error since it stems from the words of Jesus Christ Himself.

Kobojunkie:
The reason it confuses you is because it is not based on the doctrines and readitions of men that Jesus Christ warned you against but instead a direct copy of what Jesus Christ Himself taught in the Gospels.

You claim there is some error but you have not once been able to show this so-called error since it stems from the words of Jesus Christ Himself.

you are not preaching the gospel of Christ at all, you are just quoting Jesus out of context to suit your opinion

sammy329:
There's no way someone with eternal life, the life of God ends up in Hell. So spreading error, what you are saying is HSN (High Sounding Nonsense).

Rid yourself of the filter you continue to have over your eyes...they have rendered you blind to the truth of God that sits right in front of you every time youopen that book called the Bible to read.

Read through the Gospels to learn all you needd to know of the New Covenant that is Jesus Christ so no man can deceive you. It is for your own good since you have eternity before you as a believer in Jesus Christ. Make the decision to spend it in Heaven and not end up in Hell for ignoring the 2000-year-old truth right in front of your eyes.

sammy329:
you are not preaching the gospel of Christ at all, you are just quoting Jesus out of context to suit your opinion

Not once have I ever quoted Jesus Christ out of context. Go back up to see how every quote considers his message in context..

Kobojunkie:
Not once have I ever quoted Jesus Christ out of context. Go back up to see how every quote considers his message in context..

Let me ask a simple question, when did the new covenant started?? Before the death of Christ or after the death of Christ

sammy329:

Let me ask a simple question, when did the new covenant started??

How does this change any of what I have said so far?

Kobojunkie:
How does this change any of what I have said so far?

Because you don't even understand the new covenant

sammy329:
Because you don't even understand the new covenant

I don't understand the New Covenant that is embodied in the person of Jesus Christ, how?

And please try to quote Jesus Christ Himself who is the New Covenant in your response. Quoting from a letter amounts to trying to prove truth by quoting conjecture. Provide me with references from the Gospels so I can understand from Truth Himself how I don't understand Him.

Kobojunkie:
I don't understand the New Covenant that is embodied in the person of Jesus Christ, how?

And please try to quote Jesus Christ Himself who is the New Covenant in your response. Quoting from a letter amounts to trying to prove truth by quoting conjecture.

, you don't even understand the meaning of covenant. Calm down, be open minded, learn from the epistles, try and patiently read the book of Hebrews it will help you to understand the scriptures better.

You are like Apollo's who was mighty in quoting the scriptures but has a half knowledge.

sammy329:


Let me ask a simple question, when did the new covenant started?? Before the death of Christ or after the death of Christ

This is simple enough, there's a point I'm trying to make.

sammy329:
, you don't even understand the meaning of covenant. Calm down, be open minded, learn from the epistles, try and patiently read the book of Hebrews it will help you to understand the scriptures better.

You are like Apollo's who was mighty in quoting the scriptures but has a half-knowledge.

Unfortunately, it is clear that you don't even begin to know about the New Covenant because you to keep bringing up what Paul said about the slave-woman and the free-woman in His letter to the Hebrew believers who had a hard time letting go of the old covenant laws and adopting the lighter laws of the new Covenant.

Paul never provides the details of the New Covenant in his many letters so the only way to learn the details of each covenant is to read from the documentation of each. The Old covenant is documented in the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. Whereas the New Covenant is documented in detail in the 4 Gospels, each of them with a different focus but on the same New Covenant, Jesus Christ.

Also, the letter Paul wrote to the Hebrew Christians(Note they were already saved to begin with as you are informed in the very first chapter of Hebrew) was written in other to help the Hebrews understand why obeying the New Covenant was expedient, even as descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Many of them where hesitant about giving up the Old Covenant ways as given them by their fathers as their inheritance in God and understandably so. But Jesus Christ, the New Covenant was clear on not storing Old wine in New wine skin - both covenants are separate and needed to be handled as such.

About Apollo, the problem with him wasn't that he was mighty in quoting scripture but that what he taught was not the Truth of Jesus Christ. Any attempts at preaching anything but thr truth of Jesus Christ amounts to a lie... A half-truth is non-truth, a lie. And such lies do nothing but nullify the power of God in the lives of those involved, rendering their worship meaningless. What Apollo did, though well intentioned, amounted to what Jesus Christ called False Teaching and He warned vehemently against such.

Kobojunkie:
Unfortunately, it is clear that you don't even begin to know about the New Covenant because you to keep bringing up what Paul said about the slave-woman and the free-woman in His letter to the Hebrew believers who had a hard time letting go of the old covenant laws and adopting the lighter laws of the new Covenant.

Paul never provides the details of the New Covenant in his many letters so the only way to learn the details of each covenant is to read from the documentation of each. The Old covenant is documented in the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. Whereas the New Covenant is documented in detail in the 4 Gospels, each of them with a different focus but on the same New Covenant, Jesus Christ.

Also, the letter Paul wrote to the Hebrew Christians(Note they were already saved to begin with as you are informed in the very first chapter of Hebrew) was written in other to help the Hebrews understand why obeying the New Covenant was expedient, even as descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Many of them where hesitant about giving up the Old Covenant ways as given them by their fathers as their inheritance in God and understandably so. But Jesus Christ, the New Covenant was clear on not storing Old wine in New wine skin - both covenants are separate and needed to be handled as such.

That was to the Galatians .

The new covenant started after the death of Christ, the 4 gospels are just historical accounts signifying the life of Jesus.

But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth
His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, so
that He might redeem those who were under the Law,
that we might receive the adoption as sons.
Galatians 4:4 – 5 (NASB)
Jesus was born under the law just like everybody else.
The New Covenant was not established through His birth;
rather, it was established through His death.
For this reason He is the mediator of a New Covenant,
so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were  committed  under the first covenant, those who have been called may  receive the promise of  the eternal inheritance.
For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be
the death of the one who made it.  For a covenant is
valid only when men are dead, for it is never in force
while the one who made it lives. Therefore even the
first covenant was not inaugurated without blood.
Hebrews 9:15 – 18 (NASB)
This simply means that everything that took place
before the cross happened under the Old Covenant, and every teaching that was taught before the cross was taught under the law. I am not saying that we are to disregard all teaching that occurred before the cross; I am saying that we need to change the lens through which we read scriptures.
The Old Covenant lens was the law. The NewCovenant lens is the cross. Interpreting a biblical teaching without taking the cross into account leads to Old Covenant theology, which in turn results in death and condemnation. For us to rightly divide and apply the truth of scripture, we must filter it through the finished work of Jesus.

sammy329:
That was to the Galatians .

The new covenant started after the death of Christ, the 4 gospels are just historical accounts signifying the life of Jesus.

My mistake about where Paul wrote of the slave-woman and the free-woman. But the point remains that in his letters, Paul does provide details of the New Covenant but instead argues why those who believe(have received salvation as a result of their belief in Jesus Christ) ought also to adopt the entire covenant instead of any other.

About the New Covenant starting after the death of Jesus Christ, well, that is not entirely true. It was ratified after His death but as for when it started, probably the moment Jesus Christ began going around teaching it. Also remember, His followers who heard His teachings were already putting into practice, His teachings on the New Covenant, while He was yet alive and still with them, 3.5 years or so before His death.

In the Old Testament, God started giving Moses the details of the Old Covenant for him to write beginning from Exodus 12 and from then on, God also began weeding out those who would not enter into Canaan as well. It was not until Deuteronomy 30 that the Old Covenant was ratified, and it was several years buter before they in fact entered into the land of Canaan,but long before then, it was already in practice. So it would be faulty to claim the Old covenant started the moment the Israelites entered into Canaan, would it not?

I see similarities between the way the Old and New Covenants were started and eventually ratified.

Kobojunkie:
My mistake about where Paul wrote of the slave-woman and the free-woman. But the point remains that in his letters, Paul does provide details of the New Covenant but instead argues why those who believe(have received salvation as a result of their belief in Jesus Christ) ought also to adopt the entire covenant instead of any other.

About the New Covenant starting after the death of Jesus Christ, well, that is not entirely true. It was ratified after His death but as for when it started, probably the moment Jesus Christ began going around teaching it. Also remember, His followers who heard His teachings were already putting into practice, His teachings on the New Covenant, while He was yet alive and still with them, 3.5 years or so before His death.

In the Old Testament, God started giving Moses the details of the Old Covenant for him to write beginning from Exodus 12 and from then on, God also began weeding out those who would not enter into Canaan as well. It was not until Deuteronomy 30 that the Old Covenant was ratified, and it was several years buter before they in fact entered into the land of Canaan,but long before then, it was already in practice. So it would be faulty to claim the Old covenant started the moment the Israelites entered into Canaan, would it not?

I see similarities between the way the Old and New Covenants were started and eventually ratified.

Hebrews 9:15-22 (KJV) 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.
Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.
For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,
Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.
Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.
And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

For any covenant to start there has to be shedding of blood and the blood that ushered us into the New covenant was Christ's. So the new covenant started after the death of Christ.

sammy329:
Hebrews 9:15-22 (KJV) 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.
Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.
For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,
Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.
Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.
And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

For any covenant to start there has to be shedding of blood and the blood that ushered us into the New covenant was Christ's. So the new covenant started after the death of Christ.

Like I already explained to you, both Covenant were already in practice long before they were ratified.

Kobojunkie:
My mistake about where Paul wrote of the slave-woman and the free-woman. But the point remains that in his letters, Paul does provide details of the New Covenant but instead argues why those who believe(have received salvation as a result of their belief in Jesus Christ) ought also to adopt the entire covenant instead of any other.

About the New Covenant starting after the death of Jesus Christ, well, that is not entirely true. It was ratified after His death but as for when it started, probably the moment Jesus Christ began going around teaching it. Also remember, His followers who heard His teachings were already putting into practice, His teachings on the New Covenant, while He was yet alive and still with them, 3.5 years or so before His death.

In the Old Testament, God started giving Moses the details of the Old Covenant for him to write beginning from Exodus 12 and from then on, God also began weeding out those who would not enter into Canaan as well. It was not until Deuteronomy 30 that the Old Covenant was ratified, and it was several years buter before they in fact entered into the land of Canaan,but long before then, it was already in practice. So it would be faulty to claim the Old covenant started the moment the Israelites entered into Canaan, would it not?

I see similarities between the way the Old and New Covenants were started and eventually ratified.

Moses ratified the Old Covenant in Deuteronomy 30 but God already had the people of Israel living their lives according to the rules of the Old Covenant long before then.
Jesus Christ did it on the cross. But before then, His disciples had already been living their lives according to the covenant meaning it all started before His death. And it was another 120 or so days before the seal of the New Covenant arrived whereas for the old Covenant, the seal was already in place many years before the Covenant was ratified.

Kobojunkie:
Like I already explained to you, both Covenant were already in practice long before they were ratified.



Moses ratified the Old Covenant in Deuteronomy 30 but God already had the people of Israel living their lives according to the rules of the Old Covenant long before then.
Jesus Christ did it on the cross. But before then, His disciples had already been living their lives according to the covenant meaning it all started before His death.

Is this a joke or what? Moses read the the Mosaic law again in Deut. 29 to 31, because he was already old in age and his death was drawing near.

Deuteronomy 31:1-2 (KJV) And Moses went and spake these words unto all Israel.
And he said unto them, I am an hundred and twenty years old this day; I can no more go out and come in: also the LORD hath said unto me, Thou shalt not go over this Jordan.

there was no ratification there.

Jesus sacrifice on the cross gave birth to the new covenant, because that was when men could have holy spirit indwelling them, before that none of the disciples were in the new covenant.

Mehn. You are so good at twisting scriptures out of context.

sammy329:
Is this a joke or what? Moses read the the Mosaic law again in Deut. 29 to 31, because he was already old in age and his death was drawing near.

Deuteronomy 31:1-2 (KJV) And Moses went and spake these words unto all Israel.
And he said unto them, I am an hundred and twenty years old this day; I can no more go out and come in: also the LORD hath said unto me, Thou shalt not go over this Jordan.

there was no ratification there.

Jesus sacrifice on the cross gave birth to the new covenant, because that was when men could have holy spirit indwelling them, before that none of the disciples were in the new covenant.

Mehn. You are so good at twisting scriptures out of context.

Moses was the one through whom the law was given to the people of Israel and when he was FINISHED with the details of the Law, it was essentially made official. The law ended where Moses finalized it and read it out to the people. Go back and read the last chapters of Deuteronomy to understand that His reading of the law had little to nothing to do with His age and more to do with the law being complete and ready for the people to officially accept the terms as laid out by God in His covenant.

Jesus Christ and His disciples lived the New Covenant 3.5 years or so before His death, meaning that the details of the law were already available and being practiced long before His death on the cross. Obviously, that tells you that the New Covenant started before He shed His blood on the cross.

You need to rid yourself of the doctrine and teachings you have heard taught you in the past of these to in fact see the Truth of what is in front of you.

While Jesus Christ was alive, His disciples were recorded to have gone against old covenant teaching in His name, obviously in their obedience of the New Covenant, they were assumed to have violated some of the old laws as a result. Even Jesus Christ Himself was eventually killed for this, meaning the New Covenant was in motion before His death.

Kobojunkie:
Moses was the one through whom the law was given to the people of Israel and when he was FINISHED with the details of the Law, it was essentially made official. The law ended where Moses finalized it and read it out to the people. Go back and read the last chapters of Deuteronomy to understand that His reading of the law had little to nothing to do with His age and more to do with the law being complete and ready for the people to officially accept the terms as laid out by God in His covenant.

Jesus Christ and His disciples lived the New Covenant 3.5 years or so before His death, meaning that the details of the law were already available and being practiced long before His death on the cross. Obviously, that tells you that the New Covenant started before He shed His blood on the cross.

You need to rid yourself of the doctrine and teachings you have heard taught you in the past of these to in fact see the Truth of what is in front of you.

While Jesus Christ was alive, His disciples were recorded to have gone against old covenant teaching in His name, obviously in their obedience of the New Covenant, they were assumed to have violated some of the old laws as a result. Even Jesus Christ Himself was eventually killed for this, meaning the New Covenant was in motion before His death.

Deuteronomy 31:1-3 (KJV) And Moses went and spake these words unto all Israel.
And he said unto them, I am an hundred and twenty years old this day; I can no more go out and come in: also the LORD hath said unto me, Thou shalt not go over this Jordan.
The LORD thy God, he will go over before thee, and he will destroy these nations from before thee, and thou shalt possess them: and Joshua, he shall go over before thee, as the LORD hath said.

He had to repeat the law again since he was handing over to Joshua.

Answer this simple question, did the disciples had the indwelling of the spirit before the CROSS