There is a part of the Old Testament that did die with Christ on the cross. That portion was the ceremonial portion dealing with sacrificial services which pointed to a future sacrifice of the Lamb of God. When Christ died on the cross the most holy place in the temple was opened by an unseen hand, wrending the curtain from the top to the bottom. This signified that "the sacrifice" had been fulfilled.
The covenant that you keep refering too was the convenant (agreement) between God and man that He would purchase our souls back from Satan. Christ, by living a perfect life, then dying on the cross did just that. Thus the convenant was fulfilled. Sacrificial ceremonies were therefore no longer needed.
God says that He is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. Why would he nullify the accounts of creation, the Sabbath, the rest of the Ten Commandments and countless other important aspects of the Old Testament?
If I'm not mistaken, the Old and New Testament titles were probably a fabrication of the Biblical schollars during the King James era. Perhaps you can point to a different derivitave. But it's my opinion that when you start chopping up the Bible, respecting some parts and dismissing others, you've made a grave mistake.
You quoted:
NIV Hebrews 8:6-13
6. But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises.
7. For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another.
Are you going to sit there and tell me you take this literally? This is a metaphor. Of course the ministry of Jesus is better than anything that came before. But reading more into this is state that you accept that God made a mistake with the first covenant. The God I serve doesn't make mistakes.
There is a part of the Old Testament that did die with Christ on the cross. That portion was the ceremonial portion dealing with sacrificial services which pointed to a future sacrifice of the Lamb of God. When Christ died on the cross the most holy place in the temple was opened by an unseen hand, wrending the curtain from the top to the bottom. This signified that "the sacrifice" had been fulfilled.
The covenant that you keep refering too was the convenant (agreement) between God and man that He would purchase our souls back from Satan. Christ, by living a perfect life, then dying on the cross did just that. Thus the convenant was fulfilled. Sacrificial ceremonies were therefore no longer needed.
The covenant that you keep refering too was the convenant (agreement) between God and man that He would purchase our souls back from Satan. Christ, by living a perfect life, then dying on the cross did just that. Thus the convenant was fulfilled. Sacrificial ceremonies were therefore no longer needed.
23. You who brag about the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law?
24. As it is written: "God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you."
25. Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised.
26. If those who are not circumcised keep the law's requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised?
27. The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.
28. A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical.
29. No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God.
6. David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:
7. "Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered.
8. Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him."
9. Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness.
10. Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before!
11. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them.
12. And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.
13. It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith.
14. For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless,
15. because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.
16. Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring--not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all.
Galatians 2:3
Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek.
If I'm not mistaken, the Old and New Testament titles were probably a fabrication of the Biblical schollars during the King James era. Perhaps you can point to a different derivitave. But it's my opinion that when you start chopping up the Bible, respecting some parts and dismissing others, you've made a grave mistake.
If I post the WHOLE chapter or book, MEGO occurs in the viewers: My Eyes Glaze Over. If someone wants to look at it in context, they can do it quite easily enough. On the OPPOSITE end of the spectrum are those who give their OPINION and then post hardly anything to support it.
You quoted:
NIV Hebrews 8:6-13
6. But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises.
7. For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another.
Are you going to sit there and tell me you take this literally? This is a metaphor. Of course the ministry of Jesus is better than anything that came before. But reading more into this is state that you accept that God made a mistake with the first covenant. The God I serve doesn't make mistakes.
the ceremonial portion?