More problems for christians?

Question

If God really made a new covenant, why didn't he tell anyone? When he made the "original" covenant, he told all of those who were supposed to keep it at Mount Sinai so that there could be no question as to whether the covenant actually came from God. But by the "new" covenant, he didn't do anything like that. Does he play games - What of those Jews who were still keeping the old one, why didn't he tell them? Saying that Jesus was supposed to spread the covenant is unacceptable because there is no proof that Jesus actually was God (Miracles are not a proof of God, that's in the Bible)

I can ask what I want. It's a free country.

Misconception - there was no "acceptance on faith" in the "original" covenant. The covenant was for Jews and only for Jews, it was not meant to be spread to others. Only those who saw Mount Sinai and their descendants were required to keep it.

PS Im only questioning one testament

to gravelgertiesgems:
Though thats unrelated, I noticed some contradictions there. So Jesus isn't God. Then how could he be perfect? If you're perfect, you're God. How could God have a spirit son? How can an infinite being have a spirit son? Does that make sense? And if he isn't God, how can he absolve our sins? But anyway, your answer was unrelated to the question...

Answer 1

Jeremiah 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: [32] Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was a husband unto them, saith the LORD: [33] But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their G-d, and they shall be my people. [34] And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. (KJV)

It is the Christian contention that with the death of Jesus the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah came into effect. But let’s look at the fairly obvious faults to this claim:

1) The first verse of the prophecy: "Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:" Was the House of Israel present at the time of Jesus’ death? No, they most certainly were not. They’d been exiled hundreds of years previously, and had not returned. The exact location of those tribes is still lost to us. Yet this verse signifies that the two kingdoms will be reunited. Are gentiles even mentioned or hinted at as being involved in this scenario?

2) The keyword involved here is not a new LAW, but a new COVENANT. A covenant is an agreement. The Lord never said that any of the Law would change, or that the requirements that came with that Law would change. G-d was simply stating that there will be a renewal of His covenant with the people Israel, and that when that day comes, the Jewish people will no longer falter while walking in G-d's path.

3) Take note of the last verse, "And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." Has this come to pass? Does everyone "Know the Lord?" Most certainly not. Those who do not belong to Judaism, Christianity, or Islam comprise one third of this planet. They don’t "Know the Lord!" Clearly, the New Covenant has not yet taken place.

4) This passage is referenced in the Epistle to the Hebrews. The New Covenant is not something that you need to be told about when it's transpired. That's the key element of Messianic prophecy. The events described are so earth-shaking that no one would fail to see them. It becomes obvious to everyone. You shouldn't need to be told that it happened. The event speaks for itself.

5) The New Covenant is also misquoted in the Epistle to the Hebrews. While this is an argument that’s slightly different from that of the above four notes, it most certainly is worth examining.

The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews did some creative quoting. Let’s examine it closely:

Hebrews 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: [9] Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in My covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. [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 into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a G-d, and they shall be to me a people: [11] And they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. [12] For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. [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. (KJV)

In Hebrews 8:9, while quoting Jeremiah 31:32, the author changed important words in the verse. The clause of Jeremiah 31:32 (KJV) reads,

"although I was a husband unto them, saith the LORD:"

Hebrews misquoted Jeremiah's words and instead wrote,

"and I regarded them not, saith the Lord."

Am I the only one who is taken aback by this? The first thought is that this is a simple case of mistranslation. However, when you look at the changes themselves, that possibility rules itself out. If "although I was a husband unto them, saith the LORD" had changed to something completely off the wall like "although I wore brickbat overalls with them" or something equally absurd, I’d be able to buy into the mistranslation theory. This is clearly not the case. The words were changed to alter the meaning of the chapter. This was clearly done with premeditated intent. This is a serious charge, but this is a serious crime! Whenever I find a mistranslation in the King James Bible, or any other Christian Bible for that matter, it is oftentimes a mistranslation that leans toward Christian dogma?

This crime is further advanced by Hebrews 8:13. This verse makes clear what the motivation was behind the mistranslation. "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." After reading the changing of words, what are we to think of this verse? It has already been shown how the Christian interpretation of the New Covenant in Jeremiah is faulty. This verse was meant to further the falsehood.

So, we should say to those who believe that the New Covenant has come to pass: if we're under the New Covenant, you can stop preaching the word, because obviously the task has been completed. You are performing an unneeded task. The entire world knows the Lord, doesn't it?

The Covenant of Sinai is Eternal

"This is an eternal law for all generations"

(Exodus 12:14, 12:17, 12:43, 27:21, 28:43, Leviticus 3:17, 7:36, 10:9, 16:29, 16:31, 16:34, 17:7, 23:14, 23:21, 23:31, 23:41, 24:3, Numbers 10:8, 15:15, 19:10, 19:21, 18:23, 35:29, Deuteronomy29:28)

It is absurd to accept the Divine origin of the Torah yet deny it's eternal relevance.

Answer 2

I don't believe there was a New Covenant. It looks more like Jesus came to explain what the Torah meant. He quoted the Torah, not something new... He came for the "Lost Sheep of Israel" so it was still for the Jews... not us Gentiles. It wasn't until Paul that the Gentiles were even considered in on the Gospel. "Salvation is of the Jews". I find more of what Jesus was saying and doing pointing to the Jews, rather than the entire world.

And you're right... miracles are not proof of a person being God. Old Test Prophets performed miracles as well... Elijah raised a little girl from the dead... that hardly makes Elijah God...

Answer 3

He did tell everyone about the new covenant in the form of the New Testament. Think about it: that actually reached millions of more people than the original covenant. Do you have to accept some things on faith, i.e. Jesus, and the divine inspiration of the gospels? Yes, but that is what religion is...faith. What you have faith in is your decision. Those at Mt. Sinai spread the word, and those listening to them had to have faith, as well. It's not so different.

Answer 4

Are you a religious person yourself? I was just wondering.

I agree with you. 'He' should have told someone... but of course he didn't because there is no such thing as a phone that goes from 'heaven' to earth.

To those idiots that say, "Stop questioning people's beliefs" and "blah blah blah" ... Let people do what the want to! If they want to know other people's opinions about what is going on, let them ask! Don't criticize!!!

And to the moron that named parts of the bible... you should have quoted the bible... and you know what? The Bible is NOT PROOF. It is a book written by the leader of a cult to brainwash the world. It's kind of like using Dr. Sues's "Cat in the Hat" book as proof that Dr. Sues is a 'god'... because that wasn't even his real name, but almost everybody in America has heard of or read that book.

Answer 5

My, my my. You are so entwined is a lot of misinformation. Who told you Jesus was God. They are two separate entities. Jesus is God's spirit son, who was sent down in human form to be born of a virgin so that He would be perfect. He had to be perfect in order to stand in place to cover the ransom necessary to absolve our sins from what Adam and Eve commited in Eden.

Israelis had the supreme position of being God's chosen people. That means that he had a daily connection to them as you would have with your own child. An actual one-on-one relationship with God - how awesome is that. His covenant to them asked them to give their life to serving him by spreading the good news, having faith in Him, abiding by His rules and witnessing all of His works to pass down from generation to generation.

What happened? Joshua dies and they became lax and did not put any effort into spreading the good news, they had little faith, they began second-guessing Him and His motives and His purposes, lets not forget that their offerings to God were supposed to be offered from their best cattle and flock. They had the audacity (which really inflammed God) to give up offerings of cattle and flock who were sick and/or dying, only giving a portion of the beast (knowing God would provide for them), they were paying homage to false idols and it is stated that the next generation did not even know the works of God, so they obviously were not passing down from generation to generation what He had done as far as even releasing them from bondage. Now, I don't know about you, but if the masses so gravely dismissed their good fortune, why again, why would God enter into yet another covenant - remember, they were given the chance to live forever in paradise. So their life here is a bit harsh; knowing that God does not lie is enough to stick to the program. So, God got the news He needed from them, remember - he's not like us where someone has to do research to know what their intent is. God knows each of us so intensely. He personally knows each hair on our head, has a personal accounting of each star in the sky so He was not being dismissive, He knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that these people were ungrateful and He bestowed the covenant among those He knew (having the ability to see the future) would work towards His purpose. Because whatever God purposes He does.

Check out this and following pages to see how ungrateful these people were to God.

Answer 6

I think God started everything and went away to take a break. God hasn't returned in at least 10 billion years or so, and all these PEOPLE have been wreaking havoc ever since.

Nature abhors a vacuum, and people keep coming up with one absurd thing and another in their desire to recreate God to suit themselves. That's why it doesn't make any sense, is filled with violence and inequity.

Answer 7

if your saying to proove anyhtign without prooving it in the bible, its an impossibility, especially sence, you are using the bible to ask the question. that being aside,
1john 2:2
Mt 26:28

jesus was a ultimate sacrifice for all sins, which means that sacrifices and the old ways of the covenent was unneccisary and worthless.

Answer 8

First Jesus is not god but the son of mary and joseph,
as far as miricles, I agrre, BUT,, just look around an you will see the work of God in everything that exists

Answer 9

The amount of "don't question just let us believe" answers you are getting is sickening. Are there truly so many people who refuse to question their beliefs and just allow any idea whatsoever to rattle around in their cavernous, empty skulls without examination? I guess so!

Answer 10

i still believe in God, he is my life my everything. there might not be explantions for some things he has done that we can figure out, but God sure knows what he's doing. he is amazing and powerful and does everything for a reason.