Contact Us          Table of Contents

 

 

 

Objections  Refuted

 

 

 There are definitely no weaknesses in God's one true doctrine.

 

And even though folks who hold to Un-sound doctrine might honestly feel as though they have victorious arguments, it's only the big picture that can show a clear view of the Truth.  Here are the most common ways in which mis-guided traditionalists try to refute the true doctrine of God's New Covenant.

 


 

We have received a number of emails that state;

"How dare you take Christ's authority away from the Gospels."

 

our reply;

please, please, please.

 

A.  Christ has the authority of God in the Gospels.

B.  All Scripture is God breathed.

C.  The Gospels are the authority of Christ speaking to man even today.

 

It just so happens that not one single word of the Gospels contains

" any "   New Covenant Law.

(Unless it's repeated in Acts 2 - Revelation 22)

 

We ask all traditionalists to please stop stoning God's Truth with your most erroneous claims that you have emailed to us below;

 

1.  Mark 1:1  Mark declares that his book is the beginning of the Gospel about Jesus Christ.  This proves that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are a record of Jesus giving new covenant Law before the cross.

  Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Gospel simply means "Good news".  Any of the 4 different types of gospels that can be found in the Bible (You must see this link -  Gospels) are not God's new covenant.  God's new covenant is Acts 2 - Revelation 22.  Plain Biblical Fact.  And that new covenant contains the "Good news" (gospel) of Jesus (His Death, Burial, and Resurrection) but that good news is not the new covenant, it's simply just part of the covenant.

The gospel that Mark is talking about in 1:1 is not talking about the beginning of the "Death, Burial, and Resurrection" of Jesus, it's talking about the beginning of the good news of the arrival of the Messiah in Israel, the Messiah born on David's throne.  The good news of the beginning of Christ's old covenant messianic kingdom.  Christ's Death, Burial, and Resurrection wouldn't be for another 3 years.  There is absolutely no way that Mark was telling the Jews that his book was the beginning of his record of Binding New Covenant Law.  Such a teaching is absolutely erroneous and completely refutable.  Do not preach such error. 


2.  John 1:17  For the Law was given through Moses but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

This contrast proves that Moses was old covenant and that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are a record of Jesus giving new covenant Law before the cross.

  Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Jesus never used the word "Grace" before the cross.  And the Apostle John is writing this in approximately 25 A.D. from the perspective of him being "in" the church.  Very simple.  The Grace and Truth of the church, God's new covenant, came through Jesus Christ the Messiah.


3.  Matthew 3:2  John was preaching that the kingdom of heaven was "near".  This proves that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, are a record of Jesus giving new covenant Law before the cross.

  Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Pentecost and God's new covenant kingdom were "3 years away".  Yes, that's over 1,000 days.  That is not near.  The only kingdom that was "near" at this time was Jesus Christ's old covenant messianic kingdom of which He was "born" king of the Jews (Matthew 2:2).  Jesus Christ was an old covenant king upon David's throne from the day He was born.  Exactly like God had promised a long time ago would happen.  Matthew 3:2 is saying the exact same thing that Matthew 12:28 is saying;  If I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.  God's old covenant kingdom was right there in the presence of Israel.

In Mark 1:15 when Jesus says; The time has come, the kingdom of God is near, repent and believe the good news (gospel) !  There is absolutely no way that Jesus was telling the people to believe that He had been Crucified, Buried, and Resurrected.  Of course not.  Jesus is undoubtedly only talking about the "Good News" of Him being the prophesied Messiah of Israel.  The good news of Him being sent "only" to the lost sheep of Israel.  Jesus was not sent to the church, He sent His Apostles to His church.  Jesus, via His old covenant messianic kingdom was sent to Israel to bring them back to Moses for they had abandoned Moses.

For the next 3 years the only thing Jesus would be doing would be going to the "Lost sheep of Israel" to whom He was only sent and commanding them to repent and receive the good news that He was the Messiah.  To receive the good news of John's baptism into Jesus' old covenant Messianic kingdom to rescue them from having abandoned Moses.  For the next 3 years the only covenant that Jesus would be upholding before the cross would be the Law of Moses.

Absolutely.


4.  John 3:5  This is Jesus preaching to Nicodemus, before the cross, by telling him that he must be born again of water and the Spirit.  This proves that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, are a record of Jesus giving new covenant Law before the cross.

  Wrong, wrong, wrong.

It was impossible for Nicodemus to be born of the Spirit at this time.  The Holy Spirit was not even given until Pentecost.  Jesus is prophesying to Nicodemus in John 3.  Prophecy is never presently binding upcoming new covenant Law.  Nicodemus had no idea how to be born again because Peter was the first to ever reveal this to anyone when he opened the kingdom with the Acts 2:38 keys on the Day of Pentecost.  John 3 is prophecy, prophecy, prophecy.  (You must see this link -  Binding Covenant Law


5.  John 3:16  says that God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.

This is definitely binding new covenant doctrine and proves that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, are a record of Jesus giving new covenant Law before the cross.

  Wrong, wrong, wrong.

This Scripture fits into both old and new covenant doctrines, however Jesus definitely did not implement it as new covenant doctrine prior to the cross.  Jesus is talking to Nicodemus.  It was mandatory for Nicodemus to "then" believe that Jesus was the old covenant Messiah in order to obtain eternal life.  Just because certain old covenant doctrine is equal to a binding new covenant Law, does not mean Jesus implemented new covenant Law before the cross.  John 3:16 is past tense "He gave".  This is Jesus speaking paste tense right at that time.  God had already given His Son to the lost sheep of Israel to bring them back to the Law of Moses of which Jesus only preached.  God's act of giving the perfect body of Jesus to us as a sacrificial new covenant gift was yet far in the future.


6.  John 3:22  After this, Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean countryside, where he spent some time with them, and baptized.  Now John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim because there was plenty of water and people were constantly coming to be baptized.

Jesus and John were baptizing people into the new covenant using new covenant doctrine.  This proves that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are a record of Jesus giving new covenant Law before the cross.

  Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Jesus and John were baptizing people into Christ's old covenant messianic kingdom that they might escape their condemnation for having abandoned the Law of Moses.  They were taking refuge in the kingdom of the Messiah of Israel who was 'born' king of the Jews.  Only later did Jesus become a completely different king (you must see this link - kingdoms) of His new covenant kingdom, the church.  And that was only after He offered His perfect bodily sacrifice to His father enabling Him to be given all authority in heaven.  Then, and only then, as God's new covenant king, sitting on His throne in heaven could Jesus bring His new covenant to His Apostles.  And also later give it by revelation to the Apostle Paul.

Old Covenant  =  Father on throne - giving His will - via the Spirit to His prophets.
New Covenant =  Jesus  on throne - giving His will - via the Spirit to His apostles.


7.  Matthew 5  Jesus is contrasting God's old Law with His new covenant Law that He is substituting because He says "You have heard that it was said, but I tell you".

  Wrong, wrong, wrong.

In Matthew 5 Jesus is simply illuminating the highest calling of God's old covenant Laws and declaring Law within the very covenant that He Himself was under.  Jesus is not implementing new covenant Law.  This is very clear.  It was impossible for Jesus to do so.  He is God's last old covenant prophet and prophets cannot implement Laws of an "upcoming" covenant.  Only kings on the throne of heaven can.  Prophets can only uphold "existing" covenant Law.  Jesus did not become king of His new covenant - the church - until He was resurrected from the dead.  Every single word (of the Father's) that Jesus spoke in Matthew before the cross, He Nailed to the cross !

(you must see this link -  Matthew 5)

 


8.  1Corinthians 11:24  And when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you, do this in remembrance of me."

Paul clearly quotes Jesus with something Jesus said prior to the cross.  You folks declared that none of the Apostles ever quoted Jesus giving Law in the gospels prior to the cross.  This proves that an Apostle (Paul) quoted Jesus giving new church Law before the cross.

(You're partially right, but completely wrong)

Our claim is that none of the Apostles nor any of the writers of the Epistles ever "quote" Jesus giving new covenant Law that Jesus gave to them in the gospels.  Of course, because that would then mean that Jesus "implemented" new covenant Law prior to the cross.  Something He could not do.  He was God's last old covenant prophet.  Prophets only uphold existing covenants or else prophesy about new ones.  Paul received this quote by direct revelation from Jesus Christ in heaven.  Jesus did not command Paul to observe the Lord's supper prior to the cross.  And Paul did not receive one single word of Christ's new covenant from any man.  But more than that, the plain and simple fact is that these words spoken by Jesus before the cross were merely "prophesy" of the Lord's supper.  They did not become new covenant Law until Pentecost.  If Jesus was implementing Law with His words above, then what Body and Blood were the Apostles "remembering" that very night during the Last Supper ?  For they did not believe Jesus was going to die ?  (you must see this link -  Lord's supper)


9.  John 12:48  There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words, that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day.

The Gospel of John is Jesus giving new covenant Law because He clearly states that His words will be our judge at the last day.  This proves that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, are a record of Jesus giving new covenant Law before the cross.

  Wrong, wrong, wrong.

You should have kept reading, verse 49 and 50.  Jesus is speaking His Father's words to the Jews here.  Jesus' words to the church are from Acts 2 - Revelation 22.  And indeed they will judge us.  And the words (of the Father) that Jesus spoke to the Jews in the gospels will indeed judge them at the last day.


10.  Luke 13:33  O.k. sure Luke 13:33 declares that Jesus was a prophet but it surely does not declare that Jesus had to abide by any king / prophet laws that would keep Jesus from revealing upcoming new covenant Law.

  Wrong, wrong, wrong.

If we have to prove to you that Jesus could not reveal new upcoming covenant Law according to the Bible's king / prophet Law, then indeed you must absolutely prove immediately, why you're not selling all your possessions and giving them to the poor in order to obtain new covenant salvation according to Mark 10:17.  Because that's exactly what "Traditionalist" new covenant Law declares in the gospels, right ? ? (wrong !)

Mark 10:17  "What must I do to inherit eternal life ?"

Jesus agreed that the young man had done well keeping the Laws of Moses but the young man was lacking something.  What was it ?  Was he lacking Jesus' new covenant Law that Jesus is now about to give before the cross ?

Mark 10:21  Jesus looked at him and loved him.  "One thing you lack," he said.  (Is Jesus now going to reveal to this young man Binding Upcoming "Traditionalist" new covenant Law ? ? ... ready ... verse 21)

Mark 10:21  "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor."

Can any Traditionalist prove that this is not new covenant Law ?  Because if you can't prove it, you surely need to be obeying it.

  Wrong, wrong, wrong.

We long for any traditionalist to please contact us and tell us that they have now incorporated God's before the cross, new covenant plan of salvation into their congregation . . .

Acts 2:38 ˝  "Repent and be baptized and sell all your possessions, every one of you, in the Name of Jesus Christ, for the forgiveness of your sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit".

Traditionalists cannot have it both ways.


11.  John 14:1  In my Father's house are many mansions ... And if I go and prepare a place for you ... I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man comes unto the Father but by me.

This is definitely binding new covenant doctrine given by Jesus before the cross and proves that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, are a record of Jesus giving new covenant Law before the cross.

  Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Just because certain old covenant doctrine is equal to a new covenant doctrine, does not mean that Jesus implemented new covenant Law before the cross.  Jesus was on His way to go and prepare a place for the Lost Sheep of Israel.  If they did not accept Him as the Messiah, they would not see His Father's mansions.  Plain and simple.


12.  John 14:25  All this I have spoken while still with you.  But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in my name will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

This proves that what Jesus "said" in the Gospels prior to the cross would be brought to the disciples memory as new covenant Law and that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are a record of Jesus giving new covenant Law before the cross. 

  Wrong, wrong, wrong.

The Holy Spirit from Pentecost on would bring to their remembrance the words of Jesus because they would not have the recorded gospels for about another 30 years.  So the Holy Spirit would give them exactly what we read today, the Gospels.  The simple facts that Jesus was an old covenant prophet and that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John before the cross are old covenant scripture.

The #1 reason that the gospels were recorded (besides to give us faith) is so that God's Israelite children, true Jews, might have proof that their Law was done away with.

The Gospels are not some sort of  "partial"  new Law precursor.  The gospels are historical and spiritual truth.  However God's New covenant Law is as follows:

Acts 2 - Revelation 22.  Plain Biblical Fact.


13.  Matthew 16:19  Jesus says that Peter would open Christ's kingdom with the keys that Jesus would give him.  There was definitely no other kingdom preached or established by Christ other than His "new" covenant kingdom.

  Wrong, wrong, wrong.

First off we know that Peter did not use those keys before the Day of Pentecost.

But besides that, in Matthew 21:31 are you going to try and say that the kingdom that those prostitutes "had" already entered was Jesus Christ's new covenant kingdom ? (Matthew 21:31 is present tense, prostitutes are entering a kingdom at that time.)

Or in Luke 11:20 that the new covenant kingdom which was 2 years away "had" already come to them ? (Luke 11:20 is present tense, a kingdom had come to them at that time.)

Or in Luke 12:32 that the Father "had been" (past tense) pleased to have given them His Son's new covenant kingdom ? (Luke 12:32 is present past tense of already had been given a kingdom at that time.)

Or in Luke 16:16 that people were forcing their way into Jesus Christ's new covenant kingdom that had not yet been established ? (Luke 16:16 is present tense, people were entering a kingdom at that time since John the baptist, prior to Pentecost.)

 

Please don't say yes.

Jesus was "born" king of His old covenant Messianic kingdom. (Matthew 2:2)  And at that very moment He was placed upon the Throne of David.  And in that kingdom, all the way up to the cross, Jesus was saving the "Lost sheep of Israel".  And Jesus was sent only to the Lost Sheep of Israel. (Matthew 15:24)

Before the cross, Jesus never, ever, ever, preached new covenant Law.  Plain Biblical Fact.


14.  Mark 16:16  Jesus says that whoever believes and is baptized will be saved.

This is definitely new covenant doctrine given by Jesus.

(Right, right, right)

But guess what ?  This is not prior to the cross.

During the time this is recorded, the 50 day period between the cross and the Day of Pentecost, God does not have any covenant between himself and man.  Mark 16:16 is simply a part of the 40 day period in which Jesus appears to His 11 Apostles and gives them His new covenant Law.  And they need not worry about remembering what Jesus was instructing them during this 40 day period for the Holy Spirit, from the Day of Pentecost on, would be the One to bring this new Law to their remembrance.  Acts 1:3


15.  Luke 16:16  The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached and everyone is forcing his way into it.

This proves that Jesus' new covenant kingdom existed in the gospels and that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are a record of Jesus giving new covenant Law before the cross.

  Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Listen to His words, Luke 16:16 is Jesus speaking in present tense.  The Law and the prophets that had been prophesying about the Messiah, proclaimed their message only up until John the Baptist.  Then, since John the Baptist, the "Good News" about Christ's old covenant messianic kingdom (Jesus was born old covenant king of the Jews) was being preached. (you must see this link - Gospels)  All the "Lost Sheep of Israel" were forcing their way into this kingdom.  This trumpeted refuge from condemnation of them having abandoned the Law of Moses.  This is so obvious.  Jesus was years away from being able to provide new covenant salvation.  Jesus wasn't even close to becoming the new covenant king of His new covenant kingdom.  The church.  This is so very obvious.


16.  John 16:7  But I tell you the truth, it is for your good that I am going away.  Unless I go away the Counselor will not come to you but if I go I will send him to you.  John 20:17  Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.' "

You say that Jesus was able to give new covenant Law during the 40 days that He spent with the Apostles because at that time He had become king in heaven.  Yet He didn't ascend (to become king) until after the 40 days.  Therefore Jesus could not have been king and able to give new Law during the 40 days.

  Wrong, wrong, wrong.

You are mixing up two separate instances of Jesus ascending and you're probably unaware of the 7 days Jesus spent in heaven.  As you can see below, Jesus' timeline from the cross is as follows;

1. Crucified.
2. Three days in the belly of the earth (according to scripture), perhaps it was at this time that He preached to the spirits in prison (Hades). 1Peter 3:19
3. Appeared to the Apostles for 40 days (leaving 7 other days between Crucifixion and Pentecost undisclosed but those 7 days were definitely not with the believers because God says that He appeared to them over a period of 40 days.)
4. The 40 days were within a  "few"  days of Pentecost according to Acts 1:5
5. And His final ascension was inside those  "few"  days.
6. Therefore the 40 days had to be from Pentecost back.
7. Therefore the 7 undisclosed days in which He presents His perfect bodily sacrifice to His Father had to be between the resurrection and the 40 days.

Therefore, because Jesus gives  "His"  new covenant during the 40 days, He had to have been crowned king on the throne of heaven, the  "new covenant king",  during the 7 days between His resurrection and the 40 days.

And because the 40 days end at Pentecost, and Pentecost offers  "forgiveness"  Jesus had to have given His body to the Father to provide forgiveness,  "prior"  to Pentecost and so He had to have given His body to His Father during the 7 days which can be found in these scriptures.

John 20:17 The Resurrection Day (Sunday) Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father (for a week) and your Father, to my God and your God.' "

John 20:26 A week later (Sunday) (Did anyone here from Jesus in the last 7 days ? right after He told Mary that He was going back to His Father (for a week) prior to Pentecost when He ascends the last time.) his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them.


17.  Matthew 18:17  If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church and if he refuses to listen even to the church treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Here Jesus is surely speaking new covenant Law because He is talking about the "church".  This proves that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are a record of Jesus giving new covenant Law before the cross.

  Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Jesus is talking to Jews here.  The word 'church' here is the exact Greek parallel to the Hebrew word 'Assembly'.  The Jews had no concept whatsoever of any new covenant church.  Jesus is specifically talking about the old covenant assembly of Israel.  There was no new covenant church at this time.  Jesus is talking to Jews present tense, read it.  Jesus even quotes Deuteronomy 19 here from the old covenant.  The word is "congregation" just like in Numbers 27:22  He took Joshua and set him before Eleazar the priest and before all the congregation (church) (assembly).

So according to your False Traditionalist doctrine on covenant division, are we to then treat tax collectors with contempt today ? ?  When God's new covenant specifically commands us to obey the Governing Authorities ? ?

As we've already stated, mistaken Traditionalists cannot have it both ways.


18.  Matthew 19:6  Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.

You say that there is no law against Divorce in the new covenant, well God clearly says that divorce in His new covenant is a sin.

  Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Divorce is in the  "exact"  same category as God's old covenant Sabbath.  If God wanted to make Divorce a new covenant command He could have done it so extremely easily and without question.  The exact same way that He did with other old covenant Laws that He wanted in His new covenant.  All He would have had to do is place Matthew 19:6 in between Acts 2 - Revelation 22 just like He did with these other old covenant commands that He wanted to keep as new covenant Law.  But He didn't.  Plain simple Fact.

Here's perfect examples of God repeating old covenant commands in order to place them into His new covenant.  God repeated them for only one reason, because he wanted them in His new covenant.

Matthew 5:37  Simply let your Yes be Yes, and your No be No, anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

Specifically repeated between Acts 2 - Revelation 22 because God wanted it in His new covenant.

James 5:12  Let your Yes be Yes, and your No be No, or you will be condemned.


Matthew 15:4  For God said, Honor your father and mother, and, anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.

Specifically repeated between Acts 2 - Revelation 22 because God wanted it in His new covenant.

Ephesians 6:2  Honor your father and mother, which is the first commandment with a promise.


Matthew 22:39  And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'

Specifically repeated between Acts 2 - Revelation 22 because God wanted it in His new covenant.

Romans 13:9  The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself."


19.  Matthew 19:9  I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness and marries another woman commits adultery.

Jesus is simply restating the fact that  "divorce"  is still an everlasting  "moral"  sin in His new covenant.

  Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Trying to label God's Laws as especially "moral" or "ceremonial" or any other man made term is absolutely unacceptable.  Law is Law period.  Even "supposed" moral laws can change.  Under the old covenant, God's  "moral"  law commanded and demanded that His covenant children in Israel must kill men, women, and children, among their enemies (Numbers 31:17)

Is there any such  "moral"  law today ?

Matthew 19 is not addressing a moral Law issue.  Divorce has never been a moral Law.  There has never been any difference between God's old covenant Divorce Law and His Sabbath Law.  They were both simple binding laws under His old covenant and they are both also now non-existent under Jesus Christ's new covenant.

Matthew 19 is nothing more that God's old covenant  "until death"  Marriage Law of Moses.  Which by the way was only possible because Israelites were taught it from the day they were born.  Today, when people become Christians, (after they've been divorced) you can't then go and spring upon them saying; "Too bad, you've been divorced, therefore in your new relationship with God you can't remarry.  That's ridiculously absurd and repugnant beyond civilized debate.  That's like saying; "In your old life you didn't know what the rules were before getting married but that's just too bad."

We can only say "Perish you evil doctrine".


20.  Romans 7  Being married to more than one woman has always been a moral sin.

  Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Exodus 21:10  If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights.  If he does not provide her with these three things she is to go free without any payment of money.

 Deutoronomy 21:15  If a man has two wives and he loves one but not the other and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, when he wills his property to his sons he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love.

 Deutoronomy 25:5  If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son his widow must not marry outside the family.  Her husband's brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her. (Definitely not a Law only towards single Israelite men.)

Polygamy only goes against God's new covenant Law found in Acts 2 - Revelation 22.

1 Corinthians 7:2  But since there is so much immorality each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.

 


21.  Matthew 19:9  Jesus is upholding moral laws that existed from the beginning.  A moral law never changes from covenant to covenant.  God's abhorrence of lying, stealing, idolatry and adultery were born out of His Holy nature.  They will never ever change.

(You're kinda right, But then you turn wrong again)

You cannot connect adultery with Divorce, instead of allowing it to remain with sex and marriage.  And, you're crossing your wires between laws that are not morally inherent with God.

1.  Lying - Yes - God cannot Lie.

2.  Stealing - No - God could command stealing. - Israel took many things from the Gentile Nations that did not belong to them.

3.  Idolatry - Yes - God cannot worship another god.

4.  Adultery - No - God could command a man to have sex with another woman while he was still married to a first wife.  Exodus 21:10  Deuteronomy 21:15  Deuteronomy 25:5

Please don't try to re-define God's  "covenant"  Laws.


22.  Matthew 24:14  When Jesus says that this Gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, this proves that Jesus was giving new covenant Law and that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are a record of Jesus giving new covenant Law before the cross.

  Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Jesus is undoubtedly speaking about the good news of His old covenant Messianic kingdom, of which He was "born" king of the Jews.  Every single time when God's word before the cross states "the Gospel about Jesus Christ" or "they set out preaching the Gospel", which is 10 times in total, the word Gospel is simply referring to the "good news" of the fact that Jesus was the prophesied Messiah.  Period.  Simple fact.  Jesus was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel, commanding  "them"  to escape condemnation for having abandoned Moses.  And they could obey this by entering into Christ's old covenant kingdom via John's baptism.  Never is the word Gospel (Greek = Glad Tidings) before the cross, ever a reference to Jesus going about and implemented binding new covenant Law.  Or preaching the "good news" that He had been Crucified, Buried, and Resurrected from the dead.  Never is it ever a reference to Him (at that time) being king on the throne of heaven of His new covenant kingdom and able to give new covenant Law to His subjects.


23.  Matthew 26:28  Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you.  This is my blood of the new covenant which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.  I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom."

This is definitely Jesus saying that His new covenant existed before the cross and that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are a record of Jesus giving new covenant Law before the cross.

  Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Matthew 26 is prophecy, prophecy.  (you must see this link -  Lord's supper)

Jesus is saying that the fruit of the vine  "represents"  His blood, because in verse 29 He calls it  "Fruit of the Vine".  Prophesying that His blood is the  "implementer"  "core"  of His new covenant does not automatically determine at what time His new covenant is implemented.  We know for fact that Christ's new covenant to His church was implemented via His blood, the very moment that Peter opened the kingdom with Acts 2:38.


24.  Matthew 28:18, Mark 16:15  These two scriptures command Christians to preach the Gospel to everyone around the world.  This is absolutely new covenant Law in the Gospels.

(Indeed you are Right)

But your statement has absolutely no effect upon true doctrine because these two scriptures are after the cross during the 50 day period between the crucifixion and Pentecost when God does not have any covenant with man.  (you must see this link - 50 days)

There are far more scriptures in God's new covenant (Acts 2 - Revelation 22) that command us to share the gospel with the world.  Mentioning two scriptures outside of God's covenant truly has no merit.  Here's God's new covenant in regards to the responsibility of Christians to preach the "church" gospel to the world;

Acts 4:20  We cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.
Acts 20:24  The task of testifying to God's "Good-news".
Acts 26:18  Turn them from darkness to light.
Romans 10:15  A messenger with beautiful feet.
2Corinthians 5:11  We try to persuade men.
1Corinthians 9:19  Win as many souls as possible.
Ephesians 6:19  Fearlessly make known the story of God's "Good-news".
Philippians 2:16     Hold out the word of life.
1Thessalonians 1:8  Your faith in God has become known everywhere.
2Timothy 4:2  Preach the Word, be prepared in season and out of season, correct, rebuke and encourage.
Titus 1:9  Encourage others with sound Doctrine and refute those who oppose it.
James 5:20  Save a sinner from death
Jude 1:3  Contend for the faith.
Jude 1:23  Snatch others from the fire.


25.  Matthew 28:20  And teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.

Here Jesus tells the 11 Apostles to teach others everything that He taught them in the Gospels.  This proves that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are a record of Jesus giving new covenant Law before the cross.

  Wrong, wrong, wrong.

The pentecostal Denomination makes this exact same mistake with the number of people that were in the house when the baptism of the Holy Spirit occurred.  Only the 11 Apostles were in the house in Acts 2:2.  Acts Chapter 2 verse 1 is referring to the sentence directly prior to it.  It's talking about the 11 Apostles not the 120 people mentioned back in Chapter 1:15.

In the exact same way, Matthew 28 is talking about what Jesus just finished teaching the 11 Apostles during the 40 days that He just spent with them.  Matthew 28:20 is not talking about Christ's old covenant messianic ministry that He had been preaching for the last 3 years.  It's talking about the 40 days that had just gone by.  Jesus just finished spending the last 40 days with His Apostles teaching them not the "Fathers" old covenant, but His upcoming "new" covenant because during this time Jesus is no longer an old covenant prophet.  Mighty new covenant King Jesus stood up out of His new covenant heavenly throne and came back to earth to give  "His"  new covenant Law to His Apostles.  Jesus, the new king in heaven is teaching (from His  "All authority throne") His Apostles what He just achieved in heaven after offering His perfect body to His Father as an atonement for you and me.  And He's able to do so because only now has He obtained the right to give  "His"  new covenant.  In Matthew 28:20 Jesus is definitely not commanding His Apostles to teach the father's old covenant that He just nailed to the cross 43 days ago.  Jesus is now king in heaven giving His  "New"  covenant.  Plain simple fact.


26.  The Gospels were written after Pentecost therefore they must be new covenant commands.

  Wrong, wrong, wrong.

The "time" at which history is recorded has nothing to do with the fact that it will always continue to be History.  Thousands of years after Adam (4,000 B.C.) when Moses wrote Genesis and gave the writings to Israel in 1445 B.C. was Moses telling the children of Israel that they must not eat from the tree of knowledge ?  When Moses gave the book of Genesis to Israel in 1445 B.C. was he implementing into their lives the covenant that God had made with Noah ?  When I write about the civil war, am I  "in"  the civil war ?  When history is recorded it doesn't transport the laws of that specific time into the present.  History is history, don't mess with it, please.


27.  Malachi 2:16  This scripture declares that God hates divorce.  Your doctrine that divorce is allowable for any reason is plainly proven to be false.

  Wrong, wrong, wrong.

You cannot bring the old covenant into today (the time of God's new covenant).  God also hated those who broke His Sabbath Laws.  Does He hate the same today ?  New covenant sin has never been the transgression of God's old covenant feelings.  Sin is the transgression of the "Law", the Law that is binding at that exact time.  God's binding new covenant (Acts 2 - Revelation 22) contains no Law regarding Divorce.  Plain Simple Fact.  Traditionalist want to try and place Divorce into a 'moral' sin category.  To try and do so is a grievous and despicable error.  Divorce is in the exact same category as the Sabbath.  If you bind the Sabbath upon yourself under Christ's new covenant, you make a fatal error.  Those who hold to God's old covenant alienate themselves from Christ.  Don't do it.


28.  Ephesians 5:25  Husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her.

Jesus tells us that we are supposed to love our wives the way that He loves the church.  Jesus would never divorce the church.  You say there is no "new" covenant Law against Divorce but when a person divorces their wife they are not loving her the way Jesus loves the church.

  Wrong, wrong, wrong.

If Jesus would never divorce the church (which of course yes He would if every Christian on earth continued to sin willingly for the rest of their lives) (an impossible hypothetical) Hebrews 10:26

Then why did Jesus provide divorce in the Law of Moses ?  If Jesus would never divorce the church then why didn't God just tell the Israelites that they could never divorce for any reason period.  That they simply needed to love each other "until death" unconditionally no matter what, including adultery.

Isn't it amazing how up front at the start, people's arguments can really have powerful opposition but when you break them down all they are is fortresses constructed out of combustible fluff.

Ephesians 5:25 is talking to people looking to remain in a marriage, not to people who are seeking a divorce (of which God's  "new"  covenant has no Laws against).


29.  You have contradictions in your prophet vs. king statements about Jesus.  You said He was only a prophet with no kingly rights to originate Law and yet you claim He was king of a kingdom during His ministry.  So what's the deal, was Jesus a prophet or was He a king during His ministry ?

(No we don't and thanks for writing)

There are two types of kings; a king on the throne of heaven and kings on earth within the covenants given by the king in heaven.  Just like the Father was king on His throne while David was His old covenant king on Earth.  To "originate" any Law of a covenant you must be on the throne in heaven.  In any of God's kingdoms, in order to "bring to the subjects" the laws of that kingdom, you have to be a prophet within that covenant.  In the old testament between the time Jesus was born until the moment He died, Jesus was on David's earthly old covenant throne.  And as an old covenant prophet, Jesus also brought the Father's old covenant Laws to the subjects in the Father's kingdom.  Jesus was the Father's prophet on earth just like Moses.  Jesus did not become the heavenly king and sit on the throne of heaven, so as to be able to give "His" new covenant Law until  "after"  He was resurrected from the dead.

So the offices are;

1. king on the throne in heaven before the cross. (Father)
2. king within the covenant on earth before the cross. (Jesus)
3. prophet within the covenant on earth before the cross. (Jesus)
4. High Priest within the covenant on earth before the cross. (Caiaphas)
5. king on the throne in heaven after the cross. (Jesus)
6. prophets within the covenant on earth after the cross. (Apostles)
7. High Priest within the covenant after the cross. (Jesus).

Kings in heaven originate Law.  Prophets on earth proclaim those Laws.  High Priests mediate those Laws between a Holy God and sinful people.

The Bible plainly declares that all Christians are Priests.  If you're a Christian, are you mediating God's Laws to a lost people.  If not, be sure to start.

So to answer your question, Jesus was an old covenant earthly king, and an old covenant prophet, at the same time.

Old Covenant  =  Jesus is earthly king and prophet.
New Covenant =  Jesus is heavenly king and high priest.


30.  Tell me again, Moses and Jesus, which was the prophet and which was the Law making king ?

(No problem)

Moses and Jesus were both prophets.  And only Jesus  "became"  (after the cross) a Law making king.

1.  Heavenly king (A) (covenant Law maker)  Moses never became a king on the throne of heaven.  Jesus did become a king on the throne of heaven.

2.  Earthly prophet (B) (Law giver)  Moses was an old covenant prophet.  Jesus was an old covenant prophet.

3.  Earthly high priest (C) (Law mediator)  Moses never became an old covenant high priest.  Jesus never became an old covenant high priest.

4.  Earthly king (A) (Law enforcer)  Moses was not a king in the old covenant.     Jesus was a king in the old covenant.

5.  Earthly prophet (B) (Law giver)  Moses never became a new covenant Prophet.  Jesus never became a new covenant prophet.

6.  Heavenly high priest (C) (Law mediator)  Moses never became a new covenant High Priest.  Jesus did become a new covenant high priest.

 

Did you notice the one category that is missing - Heavenly Prophets = Angels.


31.  Tell me again why Jesus could not implement laws such as Matthew 19:9 as being a  "new"  covenant Law.

(Sure thing)

Jesus could not  "implement"  new covenant Laws before the cross because He was not the king on the throne of heaven during the time of the old covenant, the Father was.

The only One who can ever  "originate"  covenant Law, is the One who is on the throne of heaven.

But Jesus could "bring in" new (old covenant) Law from the Father because He was the Father's prophet.  Many times prophets brought in new laws within the covenant that they themselves were under.  And Jesus did so also.  Matthew 5:38, this is a whole new Law.  This is very clear in # 5 below.  The other Laws spoken on the mount are merely stricter revelations of the "core" of the Father's previously given Laws of Moses.   (Below, numbers 3 and 6 were not even original Laws given to Israel by the Father.)

1.  Do not Murder  -  Matthew 5:21  Do not be Angry  (Anger is the root core of Murder)
2.  Do not commit Adultery  -  Matthew 5:27  Do not Desire  (Desire is the root core of Adultery)
3.  Certificate  -  Matthew 5:31  Do not Certificate  (Certificates were implemented by Moses)
4.  Do not Break an Oath  -  Matthew 5:33  Do not Make an Oath  (Making is the root core of Breaking)
5.  Do not Overlook punishment  -  Matthew 5:38  Do not Retaliate  (new old covenant Law)
6.  Hate  -  Matthew 5:43  Love your enemy  (Israel was not originally commanded to Hate)

But, Jesus could not implement new upcoming covenant Law, because before the cross He was neither the new covenant king to originate it nor was He a new covenant prophet to deliver it.


32.  The new Testament Title Page is no different than the verse "numbers" that were placed into the Bible by man.  These are just simple things done by man to help us get to know the Bible easier.

  Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Without trying to be rude, that is the lamest argument we have ever heard.  The difference between numbers and words is as great as the difference between heaven and hell.

Proverbs 30:6  Do not add to His words (Bible) or He will rebuke you and prove you a liar.

Sorry, but if you add (words) to God's Bible you are a Liar and you should take note of Revelation 20:6  All liars, they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.


33.  Jesus was and is God, He could do anything He wanted prior to the cross, therefore indeed He could have certainly given upcoming new covenant Law.

  Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Amen Jesus is God.  And how much more of an absolute reason for the exact opposite.  Jesus (God) willingly left the presence of heaven and subjected Himself to the demands of His Father.  Jesus, even though He is God, chose to become a man and to take on the role of God's last old covenant prophet.  Just because Jesus was fully God, and fully man on earth in no way means that Jesus could do absolutely anything.  For the very simple reason that Jesus, the Creator of the universe "chose" to be bound by the rules of His Father.  How astounding is that.


34.  Some Traditionalists believe that true doctrine can be obtained if they simply keep blindly hacking away at truth with all of the above scriptures they use to object against the truth.

  Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Traditionalists will never come to True Doctrine without first  "Rightly Dividing"  God's covenants.

In the same way that whoever wants to paint a black and white sign cannot take the black paint and the white paint and mix it together and then begin painting.  Unless of course you happen to change your mind and fall in love with

Grey  Denominationalism (False Doctrine) (FindTheTruth.com)


 

Rightly Dividing God's word is so simple.

Scripture before the cross is never ever  “binding new covenant Law”.

It either falls into the category of old covenant truth, or new covenant prophecy.

 

Simple  as  that.

 

Millions of members of the church have been un-rightly dividing the old and new covenants by blindly following Johannes Pruss' error and dividing the Bible (God's perfect word) between the books of;

Malachi  and  Matthew

instead of where the Bible itself makes the division, between

Acts Chapter 1  and  Acts Chapter 2

 


* MOST  IMPORTANT *

Be sure you understand this.

Many churches, by reading the Law of Moses in the gospels,

then base their doctrine upon old covenant Law.

 

catholic                = old covenant - Priests / Laity.

church of Christ   = old covenant - No divorce (Matthew 19).

baptist                  = old covenant - Thief on the cross salvation.

adventist              = old covenant - Keeping the Sabbath.

church of God      = old covenant - Tithing.

 

These false denominational teachings indeed are fulfillments of;

2 Corinthians 3:15  Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts.

(That veil is indeed a terrible thing as it keeps them from seeing and believing the Truth.)

 


 

This site supports the non-denominational church that Jesus established

  on the Day of Pentecost.  And it most successfully refutes the false

doctrine that tries to claim that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John

are a part of God's  New  covenant.

 

Tell your friends now and save them at least ten years of Bible Study.

 

Be sure to study this whole

Table of Contents.

 

 

TABLE  of  CONTENTS

TheBiggestBibleMistakeEver.com

 

1.     THE MISTAKE

2.     THE FACTS

3.     OBJECTIONS  REFUTED

4.     40  QUESTIONS

5.     50 DAYS BETWEEN

6.     COVENANTS

7.     DIVORCE

8.     GOSPELS
9.     HARD HEARTS
10.   KINGDOMS
11.   LAW
12.   LEVITT
13.   LINKS
14.   LORD's SUPPER
15.   MATTHEW 5
16.   MATTHEW 19
17.   1CORINTHIANS 7
18.   POSTPONING BAPTISM
19.   PROPHECY

20.   TIMELINE

21.   40 DAYS of LAWGIVING
22.   WITTENBERG
23.  
24.   The church needs to stop . . .
25.   Are you a . . .

 

Contact us by EMAIL

SHARE this Website

 

www . BibleBomb . com