Hebrews 8:13 (ESV):
In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
In context, from the KJV:
Hebrews 8:10-13
8:10 For
this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord;
I will put my laws (note: found only in the Old Covenant)
into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
8:12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away*.
*Which is why it (The Law/Old Covenant/"Song of Moses") needs to be
revitalized, exactly as Christ said, in His Revelation to John.
Revelation 15:2-4
15:2 And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire: and
them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over its image, and over its mark, [and] over the number of its name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God.
15:3 And
they sing the "Song of Moses" (Old Covenant -
Deut. 31) the servant of God,
AND the "Song of the Lamb" (New Covenant), saying, Great and marvellous [are] Thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true [are] Thy Ways, Thou King of the holy people.
15:4 Who shall not fear Thee, O Lord, and glorify Thy name? for [Thou]
ONLY [art] Holy (
Matt 19:17): for all nations shall come and worship before Thee; for Thy Judgments are made manifest.
The "Song of Moses" and the "Song of the Lamb
together form the "
New Song" that
MUST be learned off by heart (see Heb. 8:10 above). One cannot sing a song unless they know the lyrics.
Revelation 14:1-4
14:1 And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the Mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty [and] four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads.
14:2 And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many "waters", and as the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps:
14:3 And they sung as it were a
New Song (
Isaiah 42:10) before the Throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn
that "Song" (
Rev. 15:3) except the hundred [and] forty [and] four thousand, which were redeemed from the Earth.
14:4 These are they which were not corrupted by women; for they are pure. These are they which follow the Lamb wheresoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, [being] the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb (obeying God
NOT women).
Under the Old Covenant, every one of us had earned the death penalty for refusing to repent (stop sinning/breaking The Law). Jesus paid the price for our
PAST sins (
Rom. 3:25). The New Covenant then came into effect,
which has the same terms and conditions as the Old Covenant. Or, in other words, the New Covenant did
NOT relieve any of us from the need to keep The Law that God gave us, found only in the first five books of the Bible (the Books of Moses), namely
Genesis,
Exodus,
Leviticus,
Numbers and
Deuteronomy.
We're talking about the diet in this thread, because it's something that everyone should be able to understand. But The Law also contains
the perfect system of government, where there are no banksters or politicians and their made-up money and rules;
the perfect system of justice, where there are no attorneys and black-robed judges administering and enforcing satanic legislation and policies, and where everyone is taught and knows The Law;
the perfect agricultural system, with no chemicals, GMOs, fluoridated water and other poisons;
the perfect economic system that eliminates usury, poverty, and the crime that poverty causes, and of course
the perfect healthy diet, which eliminates all life-ending sickness and disease.
Sin is breaking The Law, so the only way to eliminate sin is for everyone to keep The Law. Does it really make any sense to anyone that God gave us His
PERFECT Law/Commandments -- which define what is right and wrong in His
PERFECT eyes and judgment, so He could later do away with it? Similarly, does it really make any sense that Christ would have suffered the agony of the cross in the body of Jesus, to grant us the freedom to sin with impunity, making this world a
MORE evil place than it already is?
The passage from 1 John 3 below is also instructive.
1 John 3:4-10
3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also The Law: for
sin is the transgression of The Law.
3:5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our (past) sins; and in him is no sin.
3:6
Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.
3:7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he (Christ) is righteous.
3:8
He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the Beginning.
For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
3:9
Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin*; for His seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
3:10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever
DOETH NOT righteousness is
NOT of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.
*leaving no doubt that being reborn as one's true spiritual self involves striving for perfection in obedience to God
I’m not getting your rebuttal. Even the torn curtain contains a similar message as the lifting of the veil, that in Christ the old covenant (that includes the old law) becomes obsolete and that those who continue the old covenant, the Synagogas like yourself, remain veiled.
The veil was between the outer court and the inner "Holy of Holies", which was reserved for the High Priest alone. Tearing the veil down was the formal abolition of the Levitical priesthood, effectively reducing the priesthood from many down to
ONE High-Priest: Christ (after the order of Mechizedek).
And your made-up "synagoga" strawman has no basis in Scripture (
Isa. 5:20-21). The synagogues, churches, mosques, temples, etc. were all condemned by Christ, along with their satanic priests, pastors, rabbis and imams, because
none of them keep and teach The Law that Christ plainly told us would
NEVER go away.
Does the Temple curtain not veil the Ark containing Moses’ Ten Commandments? Was the veil not removed when Christ accomplished His mission to convert the Jews (ie. unveil them)?
The Ark of the Covenant had been removed from Solomon's Temple before its destruction by the Babylonians c. 588 B.C. The rebuilt temple (aka Herod's Temple) -- which was the temple at the time of the crucifixion -- never housed the Ark of The Covenant.
Yes, the
veil was removed/done away with, but the Covenant wasn't. A Covenant is a
PROMISE of performance (a contract without the con).
2 Corinthians 3:12-16
3:12 Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:
3:13 And not as Moses, [which] put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished (the ordinances and animal-sacrifice, the latter of which was replaced with "self" sacrifice -
Eph. 2:15,
Col. 2:14):
3:14 But
their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same veil untaken away in the reading of the Old Covenant (Testament); which [veil] (the veil,
NOT The Covenant -
Rev. 15:3) is done away in Christ.
3:15 But even unto this day, when Moses (the Torah) is read,
the veil is upon their heart.
3:16
Nevertheless when it (the Torah) shall turn to the Lord, THE VEIL shall be taken away (
Ezek. 36:26)
.
Maybe I’m getting this wrong, but here it seems like you’re agreeing with me.
As above please. There's no way to accept the New Covenant without keeping the terms and conditions of the Old Covenant, which will
NEVER change.
Perhaps a simple analogy will help explain this.
A man has a home mortgage agreement (a contract with terms and conditions) with a Lender, and has borrowed against his house to pay for reckless, irresponsible spending that was prohibited in the mortgage agreement. Finally, he reaches the point where payment is due but he's unable to pay, and finds himself in danger of losing everything.
A good friend of his (the Son of the Lender) comes to his rescue, and pays off his debt in full out of his own pocket. That good friend asks for nothing in return, except for the man to act responsibly from that point forward, as he originally promised to do in the mortgage agreement. His good friend warns him that this gift was a one-time offer, and that he must promise to live up to his end of the agreement by never engaging in such reckless, irresponsible spending again. The man promises, and thanks his good friend for his help (at least with his words).
Should that man allow himself to fall into debt again, there will be nothing his good friend or the Lender can do for him. And why should they? The debtor will have not only proved he didn't appreciate the sacrifice his good friend made, but that his word is absolutely worthless, because he had no real desire to put an end to his selfish, reckless habits.
So shall it be with everyone who
mistakenly believes that obeying God and His
Perfect Law has allegedly become "obsolete" (just because so very few choose to do it, as if their lives depended upon it, which of course they do). They will stand before Christ in Judgment, and offer everything they
mistakenly believe they own in payment to Him, but it will not be enough.
And there was no Talmudic Judaism at the time of Jesus’ crucifixion. The Talmuds (both the Jerusalem & Babylonian) developed after the destruction of the Temple 70AD and the beginning of Rabbinic Judaism. So it’s obviously not Talmudic Jews who crucified Christ, although they were partly their Pharisaic predecessors, let alone they who kickstarted Christianity, which is, frankly, a preposterous statement.
Oh really? What then was Christ referring to in Matthew 15 when he told the lawyers and politicians -- who were also the rabbis/priests -- that they make the Commandments of God of no effect by their "traditions"? The Hebrew word "Talmud" literally means "the traditions of the father/elders". And what do you suppose the "heavy burdens" were that Christ referred to in Matt. 23, which were being used to "devour widows' houses, etc.? It is a capital offense under The Law to afflict a widow, so it is with absolute certainty that we can conclude they were using their "traditions" (Talmud) to do all of the evil they did.
The Babylonian Talmud was written during the 70 year or so period that the House of Judah was in Babylon, c. 588-518 BC, and later added to in Jerusalem.