Bible Study Old Testament? New Testament? NO, NO!! Only One Covenant (Testament)

[Razeontherock]

Yes. The Nicolatians.

I heard that teaching too, and then some native Greek speakers corrected me; Nico does not mean priest or priesthood, and the doctrine of the Nicolatians is something else (although I forget what)

 

[JLB]

I heard that teaching too, and then some native Greek speakers corrected me; Nico does not mean priest or priesthood, and the doctrine of the Nicolatians is something else (although I forget what)

I never said Nico means priest.

 

[Razeontherock]

I never said Nico means priest.

Ok, then explain how you arrive at the division between Priesthood and laity being the doctrine of the Nicolatians?

 

[JLB]

Ok, then explain how you arrive at the division between Priesthood and laity being the doctrine of the Nicolatians?

I don’t arrive at the division between the priesthood.

From my studies of early church writings, since there is really nothing in scripture that defines this, I believe that these folks taught not only perverted doctrine about sexual immorality, but that it was the privilege of the leadership to do so, else’s the laity who were to serve the leadership.


Here is a quote -

Nico- means "victory" in Greek, and laos means "people" or, more specifically, "the laity". Hence they take the word to mean "lay conquerors" or "conquerors of the lay people".

However, "Nicolaitan" (Greek: Νικολαϊτῶν; Νικολαΐτης) is the name ostensibly given to followers of the heretic Nicolas (Greek: Νικόλαος).[citation needed] The name itself means "victorious over people" or "victory of the people", but it is a name that a person would have been given[citation needed] at birth.[11]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaism#cite_note-11

Whether this is exactly what the “deeds of the Nicolatians” referred to or not, I think we both agree that the division of the body into leadership and laity, whereby the laity serves the leadership is not what Jesus taught His disciples.


But not so among you; on the contrary, he who is greatest among you, let him be as the younger, and he who governs as he who serves. Luke 22:26



JLB

 

[Razeontherock]

I don’t arrive at the division between the priesthood.

From my studies of early church writings, since there is really nothing in scripture that defines this, I believe that these folks taught not only perverted doctrine about sexual immorality, but that it was the privilege of the leadership to do so, else’s the laity who were to serve the leadership.


Here is a quote -


Whether this is exactly what the “deeds of the Nicolatians” referred to or not, I think we both agree that the division of the body into leadership and laity, whereby the laity serves the leadership is not what Jesus taught His disciples.


But not so among you; on the contrary, he who is greatest among you, let him be as the younger, and he who governs as he who serves. Luke 22:26



JLB

Ok I just got confused at your mention of the Nicolatians. It is known what that was, as the Church did keep some history; I just forget what it was.

 

[Razeontherock]

Rajesh Sahu might be interested to see if the Nicolatians, as part of a broader philosophy, were central to removing God's law as a central pillar of the Christian way of life.

 

[JLB]

Rajesh Sahu might be interested to see if the Nicolatians, as part of a broader philosophy, were central to removing God's law as a central pillar of the Christian way of life.

I think that is correct about removing God's law.

I can't be for sure.



JLB

 

[th1b.taylor]

Footnote: Te Greek spoken today by the
Grecian People is not the Koine-Greek of the New Testament and all of the Native Speakers have been dead for many centuries, it is a Dead Language just as is Paleo-Hebrew, Ancient Hebrew

 

[Razeontherock]

Footnote: Te Greek spoken today by the
Grecian People is not the Koine-Greek of the New Testament and all of the Native Speakers have been dead for many centuries, it is a Dead Language just as is Paleo-Hebrew, Ancient Hebrew

Yup, but it sure makes for an interesting conversation when you're speaking with a native Greek speaker who has studied Koine Greek in Greece, and is married to a Greek Orthodox Priest who's studying the oldest Liturgy they can find.

Martin Luther is known for his preference for Hebrew, and I agree with him about that.

 

[tdidymas]

For those of you who are stuck in the Western mind set in thinking that there are two Testaments, old & new are sadly mistaken. Testaments are really Covenants. The Truth of the Scriptures prove that there is only one Covenant.

Do you dare to seek the Truth? Or don't you want to pull your head out of the sand? My Hebrew Teacher Alan Horvath has a teaching video on this subject. Here it is....www.youtube.com/watch?v=hF0A4PROiH0
WATCH IT AND LEARN!! Ignore it and stay ignorant .

I heard the first 60 seconds of it and decided I didn't want to listen because of one single reason: the writer of Hebrews disagrees, who clearly states in ch. 8 that there is a New Covenant, in which the Old one became obsolete. When people like that start saying things that are clearly against what the scripture says in black and white, I tend to tune out. I'd rather "stay ignorant."
TD

 

[Razeontherock]

I heard the first 60 seconds of it and decided I didn't want to listen because of one single reason: the writer of Hebrews disagrees, who clearly states in ch. 8 that there is a New Covenant, in which the Old one became obsolete. When people like that start saying things that are clearly against what the scripture says in black and white, I tend to tune out. I'd rather "stay ignorant."
TD

Is it possible that the video simply uses the word "Covenant" in a different way than you're considering?

Perhaps a study of Melchizedek (Melchisedec in the NT) will clear up this distinction for you? Why would the NT use a Priest of an order that pre-dates the Priesthood in the law of Moses?

The objective here is knowing Jesus better ...

 

[tdidymas]

Is it possible that the video simply uses the word "Covenant" in a different way than you're considering?

Perhaps a study of Melchizedek (Melchisedec in the NT) will clear up this distinction for you? Why would the NT use a Priest of an order that pre-dates the Priesthood in the law of Moses?

The objective here is knowing Jesus better ...

Well, I admit I didn't listen to the whole teaching. When he said "no old, no new covenant, there's only one" my immediate reaction is that he is deviating from what the scripture states, according to my understanding of it. If he is redefining covenant by a different usage of the term than how scripture is using it, all bets are off. To answer your question, the earlier priesthood is a higher authority than the Aaronic, just as Abraham's tithe was a higher authority than the Levitical. I take it the point of this in Hebrews is that Jesus' priesthood is a higher authority than the Levitical. And the distinction the writer of Hebrews makes is that the New Covenant is a higher authority and more permanent than the old, it being a spiritual covenant rather than a material one. So then it begs the question why does Alan say there is not a New Covenant? To be honest, I'm not willing to sit through 47 minutes of getting his perspective to try and figure that out.
TD

 

[Razeontherock]

Well, I admit I didn't listen to the whole teaching. When he said "no old, no new covenant, there's only one" my immediate reaction is that he is deviating from what the scripture states, according to my understanding of it. If he is redefining covenant by a different usage of the term than how scripture is using it, all bets are off. To answer your question, the earlier priesthood is a higher authority than the Aaronic, just as Abraham's tithe was a higher authority than the Levitical. I take it the point of this in Hebrews is that Jesus' priesthood is a higher authority than the Levitical. And the distinction the writer of Hebrews makes is that the New Covenant is a higher authority and more permanent than the old, it being a spiritual covenant rather than a material one. So then it begs the question why does Alan say there is not a New Covenant? To be honest, I'm not willing to sit through 47 minutes of getting his perspective to try and figure that out.
TD

God's Covenant with Abram is older than His Covenant with us through Jesus. We are children of Abraham, so essentially can be said to be partakers of his Covenant with God; I see that as the briefest possible summary of the Gospel, that we inherit the Blessing of Abraham.

The verbiage is confusing, because we naturally think of Moses as being the "old" Covenant. God's Covenant with Adam is older than with Abram obviously, and Salvation can also be viewed as bringing us back into that unspoiled relationship Adam had with God before the fall.

The point here is valid, that the various Covenants aren't haphazard, but connected, and with a unified purpose.

 

[tdidymas]

God's Covenant with Abram is older than His Covenant with us through Jesus. We are children of Abraham, so essentially can be said to be partakers of his Covenant with God; I see that as the briefest possible summary of the Gospel, that we inherit the Blessing of Abraham.

The verbiage is confusing, because we naturally think of Moses as being the "old" Covenant. God's Covenant with Adam is older than with Abram obviously, and Salvation can also be viewed as bringing us back into that unspoiled relationship Adam had with God before the fall.

The point here is valid, that the various Covenants aren't haphazard, but connected, and with a unified purpose.

I agree with your point here, I'm just not sure that the video man is clear on what exactly that connection is. The apostle Paul wrote that the gospel in the OT was a mystery, and the writer of Heb. shows that OT people and events can be used as typology for Christ. So my view is that the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants are different covenants, but not being haphazard, they are types of the New Covenant through Christ. Both the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants were material in nature, being covenants of family, nation, land, and prosperity. Whereas the New Covenant is spiritual in nature, according to Heb. 8 and Eph. 1:3 and elsewhere. Although Abraham, Moses, and other OT saints did have a spiritual relationship with God, according to Heb. 11, we cannot really say that the New Covenant existed at that time, otherwise the writer of Heb. would have acknowledged that instead of distinguishing it as a "New Covenant" where the old is disappearing. Even though Paul relates the gentiles joining the church as a "grafting in," he still acknowledges that it is a New Creation. Certainly if we are gentiles we should be thinking of this covenant as new, since it really did not exist for us until after Pentecost.
TD

 

[Razeontherock]

Yes TD, I absolutely agree with that.

An interesting way of looking at this some here may have never thought of is depicted for us by Moses' Tabernacle in the wilderness which was laid out in the shape of the Cross and shown to Moses by God in explicit detail on Mt Sinai as it burned with fire:

1) the first step of worship is the altar of bloody sacrifice, pertains to God's Covenant with all of mankind via Adam. God showed Adam how to do this when He made clothing from animal skins for them. Did Adam understand how this foretold Christ? Of course not. Yet I think Adam did get some revelation there.

2) The next step of worship is the water laver where you wash all the bloody mess off before proceeding. This pertains to God's Covenant with all of mankind through Noah, and speaks of repentance and our Baptism. This vessel was made of the eyeglasses that were no longer needed, made from brass; this speaks of our ongoing introspection.

3) The Holy place pertains to God's Covenant with Moses, adding the Priestly duties (we are all Priests of our God) on the left hand (Jesus' right as He was affixed to the Cross) being first the candlestick so you can see what's going on, then the Table of Shewbread which speaks of keeping the Commandments on the right side, (Jesus' left) then we get to the heart of Jesus with the Altar of Incense which was every Jewish Priest's favorite part of worship. This speaks of prayer, and was possible under this Covenant.

4) The last part speaks of our Covenant with God through Christ Jesus our Lord, and is where Hebrews picks up, telling us Judaism never accomplished this goal of bringing humanity into the Presence of God, or not into His throneroom anyway.

Yes we have a better Covenant! A new and Living Way ...