Religious Beliefs and Politics (Page 4): I have to surmise I am terrible at making my point on this subject, but thank you for replying.

rumitoid

Augustus Greatorex wrote:

You and I live a society. That society makes laws ... (show quote)

I have to surmise I am terrible at making my point on this subject, but thank you for replying.

Inyourface Loc: East Coast

Augustus Greatorex wrote:

You and I live a society. That society makes laws ... (show quote)

This is psycho-babble. Covenants? and Covenant Laws ? Are you realy this insane? I hope you are kidding ,because if you believe any of this horse manure ,you need an intervention.

206Guy

Inyourface wrote:

This is psycho-babble. Covenants? and Covenant Laws ? Are you realy this insane? I hope you are kidding ,because if you believe any of this horse manure ,you need an intervention.

Set me up for an intervention. I believe all of it.

rhomin57 Loc: Far Northern CA.

Can you give the verse? Reading the whole chapter may shed some light. I know you don't read of them using the sword except for Peter, where the Lord told him to put it away as they came to take him. I will look for what your referring to.

Augustus Greatorex wrote:

Do you think Jesus the Christ would have clarified that when his disciples produced two swords? But all he says is, "It is enough."

When he talks about the leaven of the Pharisees, and his disciples say, "It's because we brought no bread;" Jesus clarifies.

Augustus Greatorex Loc: NE

Rhonda Minden wrote:

Can you give the verse? Reading the whole chapter may shed some light. I know you don't read of them using the sword except for Peter, where the Lord told him to put it away as they came to take him. I will look for what your referring to.

Odd that you should mention Peter... Anyhow, Luke 22:36-38. In a way there is and there isn't context to this passage, however, I'll leave it to your contemplation. I'll just tell you chronologically it is between the Last Supper and Gethsemane, according to Luke, the only gospel that mentions it.

rumitoid

Augustus Greatorex wrote:

Odd that you should mention Peter... Anyhow, Luke 22:36-38. In a way there is and there isn't context to this passage, however, I'll leave it to your contemplation. I'll just tell you chronologically it is between the Last Supper and Gethsemane, according to Luke, the only gospel that mentions it.

Jesus was under Mosaic Law while he lived because he had not yet died and been resurrected, completing his loving mission of atonement and the previous agreement, the Old Covenant.

Augustus Greatorex Loc: NE

rumitoid wrote:

Jesus was under Mosaic Law while he lived because he had not yet died and been resurrected, completing his loving mission of atonement and the previous agreement, the Old Covenant.

I think you are mistaken. I think Jesus is under God's law and continues total submission to his father. He didn't live the old covenant, he lives the old covenant.

rumitoid

Augustus Greatorex wrote:

I think you are mistaken. I think Jesus is under God's law and continues total submission to his father. He didn't live the old covenant, he lives the old covenant.

Two different Covenants by my understanding--and plain, find it in Romans, not under the law of Moses: that was, as he said, "fulfilled."

rhomin57 Loc: Far Northern CA.

That is Matthew 5:18, are you are absolutely correct! Jesus said he did not come to change the Law, but to fulfill it. Not one jot or tittle shall pass from the Law til all be fulfilled. His coming was the first part of NT, and prophecy of OT. The Law that he spoke of is the Book of the Law that God gave to Moses regarding the Good, or the Evil, that would come upon the Hebews/Jews if they did not adhere to his Word. As a witness to his own word, we saw the holocaust (means:burnt by fire).

rumitoid wrote:

Two different Covenants by my understanding--and plain, find it in Romans, not under the law of Moses: that was, as he said, "fulfilled."

rumitoid

The Jews failed to hold up their part of their agreement. God had every right to abolish the Covenant and turn his back on his choosen people. But as Jesus said, he did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill the agreement for the Jews. Then a New Covenant was formed, with Restorative justice, grace, and the Holy Spirit instead of retributive justice, effort, and sacrifice. This is simply my understanding.

rhomin57 Loc: Far Northern CA.

I don't know about anyone else but it's music to my ears! There was a time when the Jews got down right dirty in the face of God. At the ancient trade ports, the pagan idol worshipers had large altars in which to worship their idol gods as traders, shippers, and so forth sojourned there. The Jews got in on worshipping the idols as well even to burning their children on the alters and eating them in pagan feasts and rituals. God said that this had "not even come to his mind" that they would do this. In the Jewish children being sacrificed were the first born sons that were to be consecrated to God, in the service of the Levitical Priests. Their were times the Jews were righteous, but those times did not cover their gross evil times. A Time, Times, and half a time = 1 thousand is a full time. 9 hundred is "times." 45 is half a time, leaving a 5 - half. 1945.

rumitoid wrote:

The Jews failed to hold up their part of their agreement. God had every right to abolish the Covenant and turn his back on his choosen people. But as Jesus said, he did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill the agreement for the Jews. Then a New Covenant was formed, with Restorative justice, grace, and the Holy Spirit instead of retributive justice, effort, and sacrifice. This is simply my understanding.

Augustus Greatorex Loc: NE

rumitoid wrote:

The Jews failed to hold up their part of their agreement. God had every right to abolish the Covenant and turn his back on his choosen people. But as Jesus said, he did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill the agreement for the Jews. Then a New Covenant was formed, with Restorative justice, grace, and the Holy Spirit instead of retributive justice, effort, and sacrifice. This is simply my understanding.

I don't think you understand covenants, and specifically the particulars of the old covenant.

But in another way of talking about the same thing: Did the multitude at crucifixion agree to the new covenant, when they told Pilate, "May his blood be upon us and upon our children"?

rhomin57 Loc: Far Northern CA.

Those that said that were of course the ones that were "for" Jesus being crucified. A group of Jews said this to Apostle Paul as well, he pretty much told them- fine. As the generations continued to flow through the years, finally that did happen, in the '40s. You see it was one of the ten commandments that the Hebrews did not worship idols. That Commandment came with a warning that the children would bare the sins of the Fathers to the 3rd and 4th generation. John the Baptist was of 3 tribe of Israel, Jesus Christ was of the 4th tribe of Judah. Many jews along with Herod wanted John the Baptist dead. The Jewish Priests wanted Jesus dead. Both were k**led. As the Commandment stated, their children generations later suffered the sins of the Fathers in 1940's. A lesson to us that God keeps his word- to the Good or to the Bad. Its for us to choose.

Augustus Greatorex wrote:

I don't think you understand covenants, and specifically the particulars of the old covenant.

But in another way of talking about the same thing: Did the multitude at crucifixion agree to the new covenant, when they told Pilate, "May his blood be upon us and upon our children"?

rumitoid

Augustus Greatorex wrote:

I don't think you understand covenants, and specifically the particulars of the old covenant.

But in another way of talking about the same thing: Did the multitude at crucifixion agree to the new covenant, when they told Pilate, "May his blood be upon us and upon our children"?

I have tried to make my understanding plain and failed. If you continue to think I do not even have a grasp on the obvious understanding of what a covenant is, I am wasting my time. After forty years of studying the Bible, it is, of course, possible that something so basic has escaped my cognitive sk**ls.

Augustus Greatorex Loc: NE

rumitoid wrote:

I have tried to make my understanding plain and failed. If you continue to think I do not even have a grasp on the obvious understanding of what a covenant is, I am wasting my time. After forty years of studying the Bible, it is, of course, possible that something so basic has escaped my cognitive sk**ls.

Wasting your time? An interesting phrase.

If you think its your time you're spending, then yes, every moment has been wasted. I don't have that problem, it isn't my time.

But as far as God's covenant, what you call the "old covenant" is not contingent upon his chosen people's obedience. You probably spend a great deal of time reading Pauline epistles trying to grasp what all of Paul's cognitive sk**ls didn't grasp. You know how his great cognitive sk**ls sent him to persecute the church?

What God has not revealed will remain concealed. I don't think God reveals the same things to everybody, because God knows what we need to understand and when we need to understand it.