True Holiness

[Mark H. Stevens, Th.D]

You can wear long skirts, black suits, and doilies....and still go to Hell. If you haven't accepted Jesus as Lord you are lost, holiness starts on the inside when the Holy Spirit creates a clean heart in us. The only good thing in a Chritians is Jesus on the inside, our righteousness is like filthy rags.

[Archbishop Trevor 'Elihu' Greene]

Why are you all saying "why wont you quote JESUS"? If you quote the Apostles, are you not quoting them that have the mind of CHRIST? The one's that were trained by the LORD Himself? Quoting one's disciple is just as good as quoting the Teacher if the Teacher does His job.

What I have noticed is that you who cling to Torah will barely ever tread into the epistles of the Apostles, but cling to O.T. Technically speaking the 4 Gospels are still under the O.T. law as well. They are only introducing the new covenant. The new covenant was started in the Book of Acts, and even quoting Acts isn't the best of ways to clear up your doctrine. Acts is the history of the early Church, which means not all that they did and said was perfectly done. For example, Paul should have never had a dispute with Barnabas about bringing Mark along.

It is the Epistles of the Apostles that lays down the foundation of the new covenant. The 4 gospels tells the story of how it happened.

[A.W. Bowman]

You folks are discussing a subject I have a great interest in. However, just so I understand the bases of the discussion, and if no one objects, would you kind disciples of Jesus give me your take on the following theological issue?

In the Old Testament (Tanakh) it was clearly sated that God found a deficiency (fault, problem) with the existing “Old Covenant”, and decided at some future date (through Jesus Christ) to institute a “New Covenant”. Question: What was that “old” covenant deficiency and how was the New Covenant to remedy (fill the void of, correct) that “original” insufficiency – and did it accomplish that intent – to what degree (how measured)?

A second question would be: What was the purpose (intent) of knowingly establishing a faulty covenant in the first place?

I am of the opinion that until there is some understanding and agreement on these issues, one cannot expect to really understand and appreciate how the instructions of the “old” can be properly understood and applied to the “new”.

Please review the attached word file.

[Anna]

Bro Bowman, I will gladly respond to your quesions, you are just asking so many at a time.

I have just responded to a question about Hebrews 8.

Here is a good article that I think will help explain vs 7:

As we examine Hebrews 8—and more specifically the author’s intent behind “covenant”—we shall attempt to let the text interpret itself and avoid any potential traps that might get in our way.

There is debate among those with lots of letters behind their names and years of study under their belts as to who authored the book of Hebrews. Some say it had to have been the apostle Paul while others argue that it was someone else. There are those who argue that it was penned by several writers. On this I cannot answer and have no opinion. My concern is what happened to the Greek text when it was brought over into English and how subsequent generations have handled the Word. In the verse quoted above, one would certainly get the impression that the “new covenant” is not only a better covenant, but that the former covenant is obsolete, growing old, and about to disappear. Reading the English, it would seem this point is quite evident. But please notice that the word “covenant” is in italics. That is an academic convention wherein the translated text shows us that the word does not appear in the original Greek. That means the word “covenant” is not in the original text but has been added at some latter point by English interpreters/translators. This is true in the King James Version and many other English translations. While the NIV does not put the word in italics, it sets “covenant” apart in quotes. The also occurs in verse 7:

“For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second.”
Again, the impression we are given is that this earlier “covenant“ referred to is somehow inferior. Yet time and again the Bible refers to the Torah as “holy” (i.e. undefiled), perfect, true, and good—by the likes of King David and the apostle Paul! These positive and affirming adjectives come from any number of books of the Scripture and not from any one person’s opinion. Does this mean that the book of Hebrews is wrong? Or might this mean that the book of Hebrews is right and the other books of the Word are wrong?

May it never be. Rather it would seem that the English interpretations may be “polluted.”

Let us look at Hebrews chapter 8 anew, but this time omitting the word “covenant” where it does not actually appear in the text and see what we come up with.

Verse 1 tells us specifically what the subject matter is, “Now the main point in what has been said is this: we have such a high priest, who has taken His seat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens” [emphasis mine].

The main point, according to the author, according to the text, is the high priest. Not just any high priest mind you, but The High Priest, Yeshua the Messiah.

The subject at hand is not about any of the covenants, including the Torah, but the transformation of the priesthood from a Levitical priest to a unique priest from the tribe of Judah. How do we know this is the topic? The text confirms it.

Verses 2-4 discuss the role of this “more excellent” priest according to the greater function of the Messiah’s priesthood. His role is carried out in the heavenlies, where he sits at the right hand of the throne of Almighty God, a feat no Levite ever conceived, let alone achieved.

Verse 5 reinforces the words of Moses that all these images and rituals we see in the earthly priesthood and in the tabernacle were “shadows,” images of the genuine articles in heaven. Similarly, we too are images of our Creator. We are very real, we have genuine substance, but when all is said and done, we are the same type of shadow or image as the tabernacle and the Levitical priesthood. Our collective purpose? To bring glory to His name.

Let us not overlook the fact that the author uses the words of Moses to bring credibility to his argument. Would such an author use Moses only to later discredit his covenants, the very source material he is using to strengthen his instruction? That would be double-minded and ineffectual. In short, that would be bad hermeneutics.

Verse 6 tells what most of us already know: that the Messiah’s priesthood is more excellent and that he is mediator of a better covenant. Here the word “covenant” (diatheke) does appear in the Greek text. The author does not say the earlier priestly systems was “bad.” It served its godly purpose. As an image of the greater priest to come (Messiah) the Levitical priesthood had done all that it was established to do. Everything we need to know about the ministry and role of the Messiah as priest could be learned by studying the sons of Levi.

A modern example might be to consider a computer’s operating system. The early versions served their purpose. The newer operating systems are generally superior (at least after the bugs have been worked out) and few users would ever dream of using DOS again. DOS served its purpose, but by comparison to modern Windows® or MacOS systems, DOS is archaic. There was nothing wrong with what the earlier versions accomplished. They did exactly what they were designed to do. But most would agree that the current OS is superior in every way.

Which brings us back to verse 7, “For if that first had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second.”

Keeping with the author’s main point—the priesthood—he is not talking about a faulty covenant, but a faulty priesthood. The people failed, not the covenant. Even the first high priest, Aaron, was imperfect (Numbers 12:1), speaking out against God’s anointed, Moses. This pattern of failure remained with the priesthood as long as the priesthood was held by fleshly man.
http://www.pneumafoundation.org/resources/articles/article_0017.jsp...

Please note that the word "covenant" does not appear in the original text of Hebrews 8:6.

King James Version
8:7 For if that first ***[covenant]*** had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

The brackets [[[ ]]] on the word "covenant" mean that it was added by the translators.

[Mark H. Stevens, Th.D]

Also, notice that John 5:24 says “has passed from death into life.” The perfect tense for the verb indicates that John sees this as a completed action. It is, in other words, an accomplished fact. Paul says in Col. 1:13: “He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love.” This transfer from one state to the other is a major theme in the New Testament. Those who believe salvation can be lost seem to think of salvation only in the sense of the privilege of going to heaven instead of hell. It is a simple thing to them to think of losing that privilege.

Those who hold this position forget what a complete and radical transformation we undergo at the time of conversion. John 5:24 is just a preliminary indicator of this remarkable and supernatural change of state. Much of the New Testament is concerned with this transformation and its impact on our lives. Consider just five things that are involved in this transformation.
First, John 3 says we are born again spiritually. It is impossible to reverse our human birth and become unborn. You may become estranged from your mother and father, but you can never genetically cease to be their child. So it would also be impossible to reverse our spiritual birth and become unborn. Another word for this new birth is ‘regeneration’ in Titus 3:5. When that word is used in a wider sense in Matt. 19:28 it is for the millennium. The millennium will involve the total transformation of the earth to the Eden-like state it had originally. Can our spiritual transformation in the new birth be reversed any more than this millennial transformation?

[Mark H. Stevens, Th.D]

A. "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith -- and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God -- not by works, so that no one can boast" (Eph. 2:8-9, NIV).
B. "You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace" (Gal. 5:4).
i. This verse and its context plainly teach that if you believe that you are saved by faith and works then you are not saved at all. This is a common error in the cults. Because they have a false Jesus, they have a false doctrine of salvation. (Read Rom. 3-5 and Gal. 3-5).
ii. you cannot add to the work of God. Gal. 2:21 says, "I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!" (NIV)
C. "Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin" (Rom. 3:20).
i. "However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness" (Rom. 4:5).
ii. "Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law" (Gal. 3:21).

[Lady Divine]

Bruh Mark,

I am soooo glad that God's word is a mighty weapon active, sharp, penetrating and cuts deeply.

You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace" Galatians 5:4

[Anna]

I'm VERY glad mark that you brought up this text. Lets discuss the whole verse.

Jesus/Yahshua said:

Jhn 5:24 ¶ Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

We also have a parallel verse, from which the little children sing a song, in-

Mat 7:26 And every one that ***heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not***, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:

So Mark, from Jesus/Yahsha's own mouth, if one only HEARS, His word and don't DO them, they are FOOLISH.

Later on in the same chapter, those thought they knew our Savior, presenting evidence which they thought got them some points with Jesus, were sent "straight to hell" as you would put it:

Matt.
7:22 Many shall say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied through thy name, and through thy name cast out demons, and through thy name done many works of power?
7:23 and then will I avow unto them, I never knew you. Depart from me, workers of lawlessness.</</u>b>

So back to your verse in John 5:24, the one who HEARS JESUS'S WORD, must DO HIS WORD otherwise they are foolish and will not be saved. So NO hearer who is not also a DOER, has eternal life, nor has he passed from death unto life, and they will be condemned.

Mark, don't get left outside of the city.....

Rev. 22:14
Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

I guess God Himself according to your definition is a legalist.... a Judiazer...

Yes HE IS THE LAWGIVER -
For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.
Is. 33:22

[Anna]

Mark, according to John 3, we are to be "born again" to enter the Kingdom. That will be our spiritual birth at the resurrection.

If you can access a Greek lexicon check out the word for "born" which is also translated as "begotten" as in "conception". One proof that no one is born again NOW is that you cannot fulfill the other evidences that Jesus explained was the attribute of someone "BORN AGAIN! When you come and go, can someone tell from where you came and where you are going? You might be able to run pretty fast, but I doubt if you can run that fast. That is what Jesus was referring to when he said in John 3:8-

The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: *****so is every one that is born of the Spirit.****

Jesus recieved His spiritual body after his resurrection, and he could appear/disappear and walk through the wall of his tomb and anything else He choose. You, I doubt have that ability.

Since Jesus took the time to explain this ability of those who are "born again", and He exhibited this ability,
if you cannot pass this test, do as he did by walking through solid walls, and coming and going without being noticed how you came and went, you obviously are not "Born Again" or then Jesus was wrong. Which should we believe?

[Mark H. Stevens, Th.D]

"You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace" (Gal. 5:4).

[Lady Divine]

You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace" (Gal. 5:4).

[James Pierce]

ReeRee,

Paul was dealing with people who believed the Torah saves. Who you're dealing with on here are people that believe you must keep Torah, not for salvation, but out of love for Yehwah our father. Although obedience is apart of our salvation, obedience on our part isnt perfect, therefore we need the blood of Yeshuah. But, without obedience, then one's salvation will be questioned. Yeshuah said man should live off of every word that comes from the mouth of Elohim(Duet 8 & Matt 4)

[Lady Divine]

Brother Mark,

Game is game to FOOLS.

Go through a FOOL’s argument on any subject and you will see this simple logic scenario being played out over and over again.

Logic Games - Imagine a fight in which one of the combatants sets up a man of straw, attacks it, then proclaims victory.

They will introduce a strawman argument and then throw in irrelevant facts and then when YOU won't or cannot defend THEIR straw man argument then THEY declare themselves as winner as if this is some sort of game.


STRAW MAN: creating a false scenario and then attacking it.

FALSE SCENARIO – JESUS has to say it to make it be SO, even if 50-eleven other scriptures says it is so, SO WHAT, it still ain’t so unless Jesus says it is so.

SO THERE!

QUESTION AT HAND -
WHICH IS ALWAYS THE QUESTION AT HAND with these type of fools. Are we under law or under grace?

RED HERRING: This means exactly what you think it means: introducing irrelevant facts or arguments to distract from the question at hand.

IRRELEVANT FACT: Jesus had to have said it for it to be so.
(What does this have to do with the question at hand when you have 50-eleven scriptures in the Word of God but they want you to keep proof texting and seeking another and another and another to match erry one they throw out).

IT IS GAME and personally I feel it is being done for sport.

FOR THE RECORD--------------
I am under grace and it is my choice and ain’t a thang anybody can do to change that but me, FOR ME.

My choice, my belief…. so pray for a sister if you think I got it all wrong but running game by beating me ova the head with illogical arguments ain’t enough to change my mind.

I will be praying for ya, so pray for me.

Peace & Blessings!

P.S. Again for the record the Hebrew word denoting a “scorning fool” being used here is lûwts (LOOTS).

~SHALOM!