The prophetical argument for IM

[zoonance]

See, the age of accountability is made up as well.  (may very well be true, but there is no specific scripture that addresses age of accountability)  Much of our understanding of salvation and God is left to our human common sense and best shot at figuring it out.

[zoonance]

Zoonance, greetings in Christ from cold and rainy Texas,

Again let me ask a couple of questions to keep us thinking?  Are we aware that Abraham was never under the Mosaic law?  As a matter of fact neither was Joseph.

Yet how did Joseph know it was wrong to commit adultery with his employers wife?  What law was there--It was not the Mosaic law--it did not yet exist..

Moral Man Is Created In The Moral Image Of A Moral God

Man is not created in the physical image of God, for God is a spiritual being (Jn. 4:24; Acts 17:24; 2 Cor. 3:17). God became flesh and blood only when Jesus was sent to redeem the world (Jn. 1:14; Rom. 8:3; Phil. 2:7; 1 Tim. 3:16; 1 Jn. 4:2).

However, each infant is created in the spiritual and moral image of God, and as each youth reaches the age of accountability he possesses a moral consciousness of "good and evil," and that consciousness is governed by the moral law created within his own nature. Man is made in the moral image of God, he is not created immoral or amoral.

"Man is the image of God by virtue of his spiritual nature, of the breath of God by which he being, formed from the dust of the earth, became a living soul. The image of God consists, therefore, in the spiritual personality of man, though not merely in unity of self-consciousness and self-determination, or in the fact that man was created a consciously free Ego; for personality is merely the basis and form of the divine likeness, not its real essence.

This consists rather in the fact, that the man endowed with free self-conscious personality possesses, in his spiritual as well as corporeal nature, a creaturely copy of the holiness and blessedness of divine life.

This concrete essence of the divine likeness was shattered by sin; and it is only through Christ, the brightness of the glory of God and the expression of his essence (Heb. 1:3), that our nature is transformed into the image of God again (Col. 3:10; Eph. 4:24)." KEIL AND DELITZSCH, Vol. I, pp. 64-65.

Now once again which law was Abraham and Joseph under?  And if they were not under law--why did they die?

R.L. WHITESIDE: "NOTE:--What Paul says about the sins of these idolatrous nations throws light on a question that occasionally comes up--that is, whether or not a person that is not in covenant relationship with the Lord is held accountable for his deeds...

Certainly these heathen nations were not in covenant relations with God; yet they were great sinners. Notice the long list of sins they were continuously indulging in. The whole plan of salvation is based on the fact that men are sinners and need to be saved.

"There is imbedded in man's nature a consciousness of right and wrong. If he never had a revelation from God, he knows that it is wrong to abuse his body and to mistreat his fellows. The fact that the heathen nations then had and now have laws for the punishment of crime shows that they recognize that there was such a thing as crime and that certain crimes should be punished by death.

"Let us be fair with God's word. A revelation from God was never intended to create any new faculties in man. It does not plant in the human heart a consciousness of right and wrong, but it does guide and refine that consciousness, and places motives before man to induce him to do right. If a man were to reach the point of where he had no consciousness of right and wrong, his case would be hopeless.

The goodness that is in the gospel has no appeal to the person who has no idea of goodness. But the heathen nations had an idea of right and wrong and knew that certain crimes were worthy of death.

"The Gentiles had no revealed law, and so they were a law unto themselves. The Gentiles never had the law of Moses, but there were certain fundamental principles that inhere in the nature of our existence and in our relations to one another.

Some things are right, and some things are wrong, within themselves...God's moral law is the same to all nations...But let us remember that the law under which any person lives condemns him, if he does not keep it perfectly." COMMENTARY ON ROMANS, pp. 37, 47-48, 57

Well, I could go on for  a long long time but I think I will add one more and then let it be digested.

But I have a question--I quite frankly do not know the answer to--- In the Churches of Christ about 20-30 years ago a group of men decided that all men are accountable to the law of Christ--even though most men are not in that covenant relationship--so the question is--what do you think about it?

Scoobydoo

what's with this "are we aware..." junk?

[blituri]

These are the same people who think that the Law of Moses, superceded by the Laws of the Monarchy was the APPROVED PATTERNISM for worship by congregational singing and instrumental accompaniment.

They think that God CHANGED the LAW of Worship and did not include instruments in the new LAW.

Therefore, we cannot use instruments without violating the LAW OF SINGING.

Because there was a LAW OF TITHING under the Monarchy as an approved patternism; and God hath not said thou shalt not Tithe, then we are under the Law of Tithing.  They call it the LAW OF GIVING.

That's why.

[Scoobydoo]

Blituri, greetings in Christ from colder Texas,

Personally, I am sorry you have such a heartburn but there is no authorization in the new covenant to use IM in man's worship to God.  It is truly an act of unrighteousness.

You do make a strange comment about tithing--under the sacrificial system--it was case specific depending on the sacrifice. And it was offered to the priests who then in turn offered it up to God. By the way that could easily average 30 per cent

Today, As a Christian--I offer up to God my sacrifices and while that includes money--God has not said how much or how often. Sacrifices--my sacrifices now that I am a priest of the most high God include my whole life--not just money but giving of self and all that implies.

I believe that God has given us a much better system of giving. And as an aside--much more joyful. but that is just me.

Scoobydoo

[zoonance]

Blituri, greetings in Christ from colder Texas,

Personally, I am sorry you have such a heartburn but there is no authorization in the new covenant to use IM in man's worship to God.  It is truly an act of unrighteousness.

You do make a strange comment about tithing--under the sacrificial system--it was case specific depending on the sacrifice. And it was offered to the priests who then in turn offered it up to God. By the way that could easily average 30 per cent

Today, As a Christian--I offer up to God my sacrifices and while that includes money--God has not said how much or how often. Sacrifices--my sacrifices now that I am a priest of the most high God include my whole life--not just money but giving of self and all that implies.

I believe that God has given us a much better system of giving. And as an aside--much more joyful. but that is just me.

Scoobydoo

\


Truly an act of unrighteousnes?   That is a bit of a stretch.  Based on what criteria do you make such a claim?

[blituri]

I think that you will find that they tithed just ONCE in each year. The different accounts define different purposes.

At best you can arrive at 3 years out of a 7 year cycle with NO TITHE on the 7th year so you might get hungry.

The TITHE was really RENT paid by those who were given FREE farms or other FOOD PRODUCING lands. That might include a house (swiped), orchard, vineyard and a flock of animals. Good deal.  If you will give me a free income producing FARM land then I will be happy to pay you 1/10 of of the proceeds.  In Isreal only people involved in food may pay 1% of their PROFIT and can give it to the poor or burn it or do nothing.

The 3 our of 7 tithes went to the TRIBE of Levi: this was a tax because the tribe of Levi had many civil duties such as teaching, law enforcement and going into battle as panic creating instrumentalists.  We already pay up to half of our GROSS for these services before the pastors want but don't get 10% off the top.

The TRIBE gave the PRIESTS 1/10 of the 3/7 INCREASE (net not gross) of food (only) to be stored at the temple and became a daily dole of food at the temple (only) while on rare rotating duty (only).  Because God had not commanded animal sacrifices when they came out of Egypt, this is the record of the King's SCRIBES and you will find the PROPHETS speaking by Christ repudiating the whole system. God had given them fair warning when the elders "fired" God and demanded a human king. God knew that they wanted to worship like the nations. So this was the SECULAR or CIVIL-MILITARY-CLERGY COMPLEX quite similare to the Canaanites, Babylonians etc.

If you were a tradesman you migh pay import or export duties. If you were a craftsman and made a profit you did NOT tithe because the tribe had not given you a GOING BUSINESS.  Taking tithes of wages is called robbery.

The other three tithes were used for other purposes: one tithe was held in reserve by the farmers to help the POOR (destitute) in their own area. Another tithe could be turned into cash and "laid by HIM in store" as he went to a festival which was a MUSTER for draft age men: that is why they could by wine and strong drink and treat the poor Levites.

I don't have a heart burn: I just know that there is no LAW OF GIVING in the New Testament and most recorded history agrees.  The early Restoration Movement leaders agreed and many rejected the BUDGET.

Furthermore, there is no ROLE withing a local congregation which CALLS for support: like a good herald (presbyter or kerusso) Paul made sure that those RECEIVING the message never paid the expenses.  Messages were prepaid and a herals who tried to collect on the receiving end was hurt real bad.

Yes, I know that you have read 1 Cor 16:2 but Paul said that it was NOT A COMMANDMENT.  And he did not say lay by at the church house.  It's jsut a matter of looking for truth in all the right places.

[Scoobydoo]

Zoonance, greetings in Christ from rainy and Cold Texas, 

you said --Truly an act of unrighteousnes?   That is a bit of a stretch.  Based on what criteria do you make such a claim?

My response--it is simple--unrighteousness is the opposite of "righteousness"

The translation of righteous or righteousness is "right wiseness" which takes us to "right actions"

In our Worship to God--God has provided us with those rightactions that are acceptable to God.

In the new Covenant--God has not authorized the use of IM in man's worship--ergo to do so is an act of unrighteousness.

Scoobydoo

[Livelysword]

THE covenant is THE covenant. Yes!   

Lively:  The point is the Hebrew writer speaks of an old covenant which was to be done away with, and a new covenant which was to take the place of the Old Covenant...  The question is, at what point is the bible Old Covenant Old Testament, and at what point is the bible New Covenant, New Testament... where is the dividing line...  It would be my contention that the page which states the New Testament is the correct dividing place between the Old Testament and the New Testament...  Starting at Matthew... and not at Acts 2 as some would teach...  The Testament begins with Matthew... but the Covenant begins in Acts 2...  Yet the Testament of that covenant starts at Matthew...  It starts with the Testimony of that covenant by the testator, Jesus Christ... and his forerunner, John the baptist... and the writings of the New Testament by those who bear witness of the Testator, his apostles and prophets who after the Death of the Testator wrote the New Testament.

[Scoobydoo]

Lively, greetings in Christ from rainy and cold Texas,

You give a human explanations of the breakdown of the scriptures. That is not how God breaks it down.

One cannot bring one portion of the Mosaic law into the New covenant--and keep it the new covenant.

Was the will probated at the birth of Jesus in Matt 1:1 or in Acts 2?

Jesus was their messiah and He was also the last prophet to the nation of Israel.Here is just one way to begin to distinguish the difference...  Look at the good news.

Mar 1:1  The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;
Mar 1:2  As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.

How do we interpret this? 
Where do we begin in our study of Scriptures>

Do we start with --What does this passage mean to me? If you do you will take gospel to acts 2:38 and nothing could be further from the truth.

When we read the scriptures we need to begin with:

What does it mean to the original audience?  Then
What does it mean to the audience that read it--then
Now, What does it mean to me.
If we begin with the last one--first--we do not arrive with truth with the texts.

The good news here in Mark 1:1 is not Acts 2:38--that is still several years in their future.

Mar 1:14  Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,
Mar 1:15  And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

Now--To whom was Jesus preaching?  To whom did Jesus tell that the "KINGDOM OF GOD WAS AT HAND?  It was not Christians--It was not Gentiles--It was not you and I.We just get to read about it after the fact.

To understand that the Jews were the ones to whom Jesus preached the good news that the kingdom of God was at hand--That does not mean tha the KINGDOM OF GOD 3 1/2 YEARS LATER..

Mat 10:1  And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease. ........

Mat 10:5  These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
Mat 10:6  But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Mat 10:7  And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.


Carefully consider the importance of this text--The kingdom of heaven is at hand was preached toa specific audience--the Jews. The disciples were forbidden to take the gospel of the kingdom of God to the Samaritians nor to the Gentiles.  Christians did not yet exist so it could not be for them either at that point in time.

Mat 15:21  Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon.
Mat 15:22  And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
Mat 15:23  But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
Mat 15:24  But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Mat 15:25  Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
Mat 15:26  But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.
Mat 15:27  And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.
Mat 15:28  Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

Yes, Jesus due to the faith of the Gentile woman granted her request..But neither did Jesus preach the coming kingdom of God to the Gentile woman--she was not intended to have that good news.

One more text--

Mat 12:28  But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.

Jesus in Mark 1:1 begins to preach the coming Kingdom of God and folks here He tells the jews that the KINGDOM OF GOD IS COME UNTO YOU..  Does not refer to Acts 2 at all.

We have set in bible classes so long and we are always asked what does this text mean to you--we never get to the correct beginning point.

Simple Question--Is the gospel--the good news that Jesus preached--and which Jesus stated was among them for you and I today?

Scoobydoo




 

[Livelysword]

Lively, greetings in Christ from rainy and cold Texas,

You give a human explanations of the breakdown of the scriptures. That is not how God breaks it down.

One cannot bring one portion of the Mosaic law into the New covenant--and keep it the new covenant.

Was the will probated at the birth of Jesus in Matt 1:1 or in Acts 2?

Jesus was their messiah and He was also the last prophet to the nation of Israel.Here is just one way to begin to distinguish the difference...  Look at the good news.

Mar 1:1  The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;
Mar 1:2  As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.

How do we interpret this? 
Where do we begin in our study of Scriptures>

Do we start with --What does this passage mean to me? If you do you will take gospel to acts 2:38 and nothing could be further from the truth.

When we read the scriptures we need to begin with:

What does it mean to the original audience?  Then
What does it mean to the audience that read it--then
Now, What does it mean to me.
If we begin with the last one--first--we do not arrive with truth with the texts.

The good news here in Mark 1:1 is not Acts 2:38--that is still several years in their future.

Mar 1:14  Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,
Mar 1:15  And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

Now--To whom was Jesus preaching?  To whom did Jesus tell that the "KINGDOM OF GOD WAS AT HAND?  It was not Christians--It was not Gentiles--It was not you and I.We just get to read about it after the fact.

To understand that the Jews were the ones to whom Jesus preached the good news that the kingdom of God was at hand--That does not mean tha the KINGDOM OF GOD 3 1/2 YEARS LATER..

Mat 10:1  And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease. ........

Mat 10:5  These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
Mat 10:6  But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Mat 10:7  And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.


Carefully consider the importance of this text--The kingdom of heaven is at hand was preached toa specific audience--the Jews. The disciples were forbidden to take the gospel of the kingdom of God to the Samaritians nor to the Gentiles.  Christians did not yet exist so it could not be for them either at that point in time.

Mat 15:21  Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon.
Mat 15:22  And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
Mat 15:23  But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
Mat 15:24  But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Mat 15:25  Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
Mat 15:26  But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.
Mat 15:27  And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.
Mat 15:28  Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

Yes, Jesus due to the faith of the Gentile woman granted her request..But neither did Jesus preach the coming kingdom of God to the Gentile woman--she was not intended to have that good news.

One more text--

Mat 12:28  But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.

Jesus in Mark 1:1 begins to preach the coming Kingdom of God and folks here He tells the jews that the KINGDOM OF GOD IS COME UNTO YOU..  Does not refer to Acts 2 at all.

We have set in bible classes so long and we are always asked what does this text mean to you--we never get to the correct beginning point.

Simple Question--Is the gospel--the good news that Jesus preached--and which Jesus stated was among them for you and I today?

Scoobydoo




 

Lively:  I fully understand what you are saying concerning to whom were the letters written to and who was the audience at the time things were spoken...  a covenant can not come into effect without the death of the testator, is that not correct?  Until Jesus died the New Covenant had not been in effect.  That is just a flat out fact which is supported by scripture...


Heb 9:16  For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
Heb 9:17  For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.


When John and Jesus preached the kingdom... it had not yet arrived...  it was spoken in future tense, but it was at hand close by... soon to appear...


Luk 10:18  And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.


Rev 12:7  And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
Rev 12:8  And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
Rev 12:9  And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
Rev 12:10  And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.
Rev 12:11  And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.
Rev 12:12  Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.


When did the kingdom come... and by what was it that we have overcome the devil by?  His blood and his testimony. 


Again,


Heb 9:15  And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
Heb 9:16  For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
Heb 9:17  For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.


when I read such stuff, I understand these were not written to me... but to others in that time... and take into consideration that some things written to them do not even apply to me today... such as the gifts of the Spirit which were meant for that time... but the kingdom came with Power... and Jesus told his disciples to wait in Jerusalem until they be endued with Power from above... that happened in Acts 2... there is no way around these facts...  The NT begins with Matthew and the NT covenant began in Acts 2.   Here is a fact for you... while Jesus lived, he was a Jew and under the law of Moses which commands one keep the sabbath... and he and all his disciples kept the sabbath day...  but after Acts 2 when the NT covenant went into effect, the OT law of Moses was nailed to the cross and was taken out of the way making ready for the NT law of Christ to take its place, in which it is not commanded to keep the sabbath...  I understand your points, but it has not changed my belief at all...

[zoonance]

I wasn't trying to change your belief by the way.  Don't feel the need to.  But it is never a bad thing to consider our evidence for what we believe.  Too often we simply share what we were taught without honestly trying to put it all aside to just listen for the first time, without injecting our personal baggage into the text.   There is a reason why we don't all come to the same conclusions, especially all at the same time.  It isn't often the case that "they" just don't want to know the truth and that is why they refuse to agree with me.  In fact, that rarely is the case.  We don't see what we don't want to, that is true.  But usually we don't see what we weren't looking for.

[Scoobydoo]

Lively, greetings in Christ from sunny Texas,

Lively:  I fully understand what you are saying concerning to whom were the letters written to and who was the audience at the time things were spoken...  a covenant can not come into effect without the death of the testator, is that not correct?  Until Jesus died the New Covenant had not been in effect.  That is just a flat out fact which is supported by scripture...
My observation

I am  in agreement--Until Jesus died the New Covenant had not been in effect is correct.

you stated--When John and Jesus preached the kingdom... it had not yet arrived...  it was spoken in future tense, but it was at hand close by... soon to appear...

My response--but it had in the form of the Messiah.
Mark:11.  The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;

And the good news that is the gospel of Jesus Christ was not given to any but to whom it had been promished--the Nation of Israel.

For Jesus the Kingdom was present, in there here and now and was among them--

Mat 10:5  These twelve Jesus sent forth, and charged them, saying, Go not into any way of the Gentiles, and enter not into any city of the Samaritans:
Mat 10:6  but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Mat 10:7  And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.


Jesus did not lie to us--And, stop and think about this--IF---IF the Jewish people had accepted Jesus as their Messiah--we would be living in a different world. But they rejected him thus allowing the Gentiles to come in.

Mat 12:28  But if I by the Spirit of God cast out demons, then is the kingdom of God come upon you.
Mat 12:29  Or how can one enter into the house of the strong man, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house.


Yes. Satan our adversary fell from heaven because of the preaching and teaching of Jesus regarding the kingdom of God.

Jesus makes it crystal clear---Jesus by the Spirit of God is casting out demons--THE KINGDOM OF GOD HAS COME UPON YOU... YOU is not you and me nor the Samaritians nor the Gentiles of that day. Jesus tells them that it right then among them..

Now, the good news{that is the gospel of the kingdom of God} is directed toward only one audience--and that the Jews. It is their rejection of the kingdom of God that allows the rest of the world to enter into the new covenant--by obeying the gospel{good news is not the same as here in Mark 1:1}

At the cross the Jews lost the Mosaic Covenant and fifty days later a new Covenant comes into effect.
At the cross the Jews are now under the moral law of sin and death that they were under prior to Mt. Sinai.
Today from the cross onward--all peoples not just the Jews are the people of God by obedient faith and obedience to the good new of Acts 2--not the good news of Mark 1:1 which was limited to just the Jews.

Many years after Pentecost the gospels were written--but we have to understand were not commonally available until after the advent of the printing press hundreds of years later.

[1] It is true that the kingdom of God is always God's.
[2] In the first --it was given only to the Jews who were the descendants of Abraham
[2] In the second--the audience is now the whole world of lost human souls.


Oh--one more thing about the writings of the gospels--Keep this firmly in mind--while the gospels were written years after Pentecost--All the acts in the gospels up to the cross, that is context--is Old Covenant. The birth, the life and death of Jesus bring the Old Covenant to an end IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH THE NEW.
Scooby Do

[zoonance]

The "gospel" writers didn't have the Old Covenant in mind.  They had Jesus in mind.  They didn't write to say "Look He said some things that really don't pertain to us now but I will start and finish my letter in order to confuse you all about distinctions."   They wrote a letter to be read and believed.  Not to be analyzed to death.

[Scoobydoo]

Zoonance, greetings from sunny Texas,

you stated....The "gospel" writers didn't have the Old Covenant in mind.  They had Jesus in mind.  They didn't write to say "Look He said some things that really don't pertain to us now but I will start and finish my letter in order to confuse you all about distinctions."   They wrote a letter to be read and believed.  Not to be analyzed to death.

My response--Quite the contrary--they most certainly had it on their mind. For the first 8-10 years of the New Covenant the good news was primarily preached to the Jews and then when Paul became an apostle--it opened to the rest of the world.

You need to carefully read Romans 7:1-4--

The Jews were trying to take the Mosaic law and keep parts of it and add it to the new Covenant. No can do--One cannot be married to two laws at the same time.  It was hard for the Jews to turn loose of hundreds of years of teaching and tradition--but most of them eventually did so.

Paul in his teaching to Timothy makes a really good understanding of this--we just tend to over read it --2Ti 2:15  Give diligence to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, handling aright the word of truth.

The KJV puts it this way--2Ti 2:15  Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Man as near as I can tell divided the scriptures up around 1400-1500 ad

That does not mean that the scriptures of the Old Covenant are not inspired--but Timothy was to rightly divide the word--and that would not be easy for either men. However, they had the holy Spirit to help and guide them in this matter.

Scoobydoo


   

[zoonance]

Zoonance, greetings from sunny Texas,

you stated....The "gospel" writers didn't have the Old Covenant in mind.  They had Jesus in mind.  They didn't write to say "Look He said some things that really don't pertain to us now but I will start and finish my letter in order to confuse you all about distinctions."   They wrote a letter to be read and believed.  Not to be analyzed to death.

My response--Quite the contrary--they most certainly had it on their mind. For the first 8-10 years of the New Covenant the good news was primarily preached to the Jews and then when Paul became an apostle--it opened to the rest of the world.

You need to carefully read Romans 7:1-4--

The Jews were trying to take the Mosaic law and keep parts of it and add it to the new Covenant. No can do--One cannot be married to two laws at the same time.  It was hard for the Jews to turn loose of hundreds of years of teaching and tradition--but most of them eventually did so.

Paul in his teaching to Timothy makes a really good understanding of this--we just tend to over read it --2Ti 2:15  Give diligence to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, handling aright the word of truth.

The KJV puts it this way--2Ti 2:15  Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Man as near as I can tell divided the scriptures up around 1400-1500 ad

That does not mean that the scriptures of the Old Covenant are not inspired--but Timothy was to rightly divide the word--and that would not be easy for either men. However, they had the holy Spirit to help and guide them in this matter.

Scoobydoo


   

The only word he had to rightly divide was the OT, except for the letter he recieved from Paul telling him to rightly divide the word that he had known from his childhood.