This is an article that covers one of, if not the most important, Biblical subject of this hour. It is precisely because of this particular topic that we have a world drowning in a “false Christianity” because we have had so many modern-day Uzzah’s put their metaphoric hands of understanding to the “holy thing!”
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God!” The first estate of man was lost over a third-party insinuating a question about the meaning of God’s Word and convincing his audience that God’s Word didn’t mean what it said.
Anytime, at any place, God’s Word is altered, His covering of revelatory truth is broken and hell reigns with with the uncontested scepter of deceit.
"Translating it as “law” turned God into a legal authority rather than a covenant Father. It made the Tanakh look like a harsh system and the New Covenant look like a divine loophole."
Beautifully said. The term "law" does make it sound like these statutes are arbitrary barriers God placed between Himself and His people, when it is supposed to be a reflection of His character and nature that His people are meant to represent.
Well, once again, you made this simple man have to think. So, I went to the Google (good ol' Google) to see what the Tanakh is. Wow, it says there are only 24 books, not the 39 that The KJV has in the table of contents. So maybe next year instead of reading my Life Principals Daily Bible (the Bible in a year), I will read in the order of the Tanakh. One final comment, you mentioned that saying Old and New Testament sounds like the new is replacing the old. Then you said we should say New Covenant. Doesn't that imply the same thing, that the New Covenant replaces the Old Covenant? Actually, does the Bible even say Old Covenant anywhere, or is it just God's Covenant?
No, that’s a great point. It’s echoing the text in Jeremiah. He says, “I’m going to make a new covenant,” but the content isn’t replacement — it’s compounding. So yes, it’s called the New Covenant because it is new, but it’s not disconnected from what came before.
I largely agree with your perspective, especially regarding the significance of the covenant and the foundational role of the Jewish sources. Your emphasis on the continuity of God’s plan and the roots of the Scriptures is very compelling, even if I may not fully share every detail of your argument.
Great post, Mr. DeSoto! At one point, you recommend saying "Tanakh" rather than "Old Testament." While I definitely agree with you that viewing the Bible as "Old" and "New" is problematic, I also think that it is important for us to use terms that the average Christian will at least comprehend - otherwise traditional believers asking questions might dismiss us as "weird," "fringe," or even "cultish" after a short conversation with one of us. On this note, what do you think about possibly referring to the two parts of Scripture as the "Older" and "Newer" Testaments, a custom used by Greg L. Bahnsen and others?
You know, that’s a great question. If it were up to me, I’d just call Scripture Scripture. In other words, I’d reference it the same way they do in the New Testament “the Torah, the Writings, and the Prophets.”
And instead of calling the later writings the “New Testament,” I’d follow something closer to the Tree of Life approach, breaking them into simple, clear sections:
• The Gospels
• The History (Acts)
• The Letters
• The Revelation
That framing feels more natural, more Hebraic, and avoids the whole “Old vs. New” mindset altogether.
I love how you asked that question, thank you for taking the time to read it.
Very good post. Easy to see if we look at the Bible as one continuous story from start to finish. It’s all Jesus from creation to end when the earth is rolled up like a scroll. Plus, why would I want to defend something that has been made up?
Wow! I'm sitting here completely convicted. I think God is breaking me again into something more genuine and beautiful that I've missed out on for years.
P.S. My Jewish Study Bible will arrive shortly. I'm looking forward to a refreshing of the Spirit! Bless You Sergio!
It's one book from the beginning (Genesis) to the end (Revelation). The complete story of Creation, Separation, Redemption, and Restoration. Past, present, future. Of our Creator and Redeemer. The first error was in falsely labeling Scripture as two different parts. Holy Scriptures, period.
If you carefully and thought fully read the Brit Chadashah (Renewed Covenant), the Tanakh is called the Scripture by the writers and they didn't have the Brit Chadashah until after their deaths. So we have Covenant Aleph and Covenant Bet, the fulfillment of Covenant
It's one covenant and one prophecy stretched out over the course of time.
It's 66 manuscripts collected into a book with many others tossed aside by Rome because they were too inconvenient to the Roman narrative.
It's many manuscripts for one simple and unavoidable reason, the lifespan of mortal man is much shorter than the story (average 70 yrs), therefore many mortal storytellers had to be used in succession, some better story tellers than others. When we refer to the story as a book we are framing it between two covers, a front cover (the beginning) and a back cover (the end). This creates a big problem because the story does have a beginning, but no ending. The story continues to be written even today. The Creator is endless, His covenant is forever. With a back cover in place we can't finish writing the story, and must begin another book to continue the story.
By framing it within the confines of two covers, we imply that the Creator has an end and that we can fit His qualities of eternity and infinity within a confined space. To do so is no different than trying to put God in your back pocket.
"Translating it as “law” turned God into a legal authority rather than a covenant Father. It made the Tanakh look like a harsh system and the New Covenant look like a divine loophole."
Oh my goodness. I'm almost 70 and for the 1st time I just read words about the "old" testament that actually FIT the way I read them as a child!
God was trying to offer a better way to interact with each other that was kinder, more fair, more just than just the "every one for themselves" style!
Mr Sergio, I know this is not a comment of the article posted. But do you have any writings on the fire of God versus just speaking is tongues. Why is the church not demonstrating the power and fire we see in the book of Acts. There aren’t many signs and wonders these days of healing. I minister at a nursing home and I’m sad each time I leave as these people are still in wheelchairs (wanting to walk again,strokes victims wanting to talk etc). I preach Jesus to them but they’re asking for the Jesus who heals like in Acts and I feel I maybe misrepresenting Him. Help if you can please! Thanks😇
Scripture, the fire of God isn’t tongues. Fire is God’s purifying, empowering presence resting on a surrendered life. And tongues, in a Hebraic sense, mean speaking by the Spirit beyond your natural ability, God giving utterance that reaches hearts in ways you couldn’t on your own.
And in my opinion, the reason we don’t see Acts-level power today is because the modern church has largely lost Acts-level obedience. God hasn’t changed — we have. But sister, you’re not misrepresenting Yeshua in that nursing home. You’re doing exactly what He commanded: loving them, witnessing, showing mercy. The fire is a life yielded… the power is His to release. Stay strong - 💪
Yes, “baptized with the Holy Spirit and fire” is about His presence, not a church moment. In Scripture, God’s fire is always His purifying, consuming, empowering presence, the same fire Moses saw in the bush, the same fire that fell on Sinai, the same fire Hebrews calls “our God is a consuming fire.”
And this is why, in my opinion, so many pray for fire and never see it: the modern church often wants the experience without the obedience. Tongues may show up, but the fire is when God actually takes over the vessel. That’s what John and Yeshua meant — not a moment of noise, but a life He can burn through.
Sharon, The book of Acts is still being written today. Some still carry the fire and the sword of the Spirit. You can hear and see many testimonies of salvation, healing and the fire of revival in the Church at revival.com 57 million confirmed salvations since 2000.
Marcion developed his idea of the Old and New Testaments in the mid-2nd century CE, leading to his excommunication from the Roman church in 144 CE. He believed the Old Testament God was a lesser, vengeful deity, distinct from the benevolent God revealed through Jesus in the New Testament, and that Christians should reject the Old Testament. This led him to compile his own "New Testament" canon, which included a modified version of the Gospel of Luke and ten letters of Paul, purged of any references to the Old Testament. This lead to western church father's to canonizing a bible but keeping the idea of "Old" and "New".
This is an article that covers one of, if not the most important, Biblical subject of this hour. It is precisely because of this particular topic that we have a world drowning in a “false Christianity” because we have had so many modern-day Uzzah’s put their metaphoric hands of understanding to the “holy thing!”
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God!” The first estate of man was lost over a third-party insinuating a question about the meaning of God’s Word and convincing his audience that God’s Word didn’t mean what it said.
Anytime, at any place, God’s Word is altered, His covering of revelatory truth is broken and hell reigns with with the uncontested scepter of deceit.
"Translating it as “law” turned God into a legal authority rather than a covenant Father. It made the Tanakh look like a harsh system and the New Covenant look like a divine loophole."
Beautifully said. The term "law" does make it sound like these statutes are arbitrary barriers God placed between Himself and His people, when it is supposed to be a reflection of His character and nature that His people are meant to represent.
Thank you for the clarification. Rome has hidden A LOT of things over the centuries.
Rome has so much to answer for and it’s no better today !
Well, once again, you made this simple man have to think. So, I went to the Google (good ol' Google) to see what the Tanakh is. Wow, it says there are only 24 books, not the 39 that The KJV has in the table of contents. So maybe next year instead of reading my Life Principals Daily Bible (the Bible in a year), I will read in the order of the Tanakh. One final comment, you mentioned that saying Old and New Testament sounds like the new is replacing the old. Then you said we should say New Covenant. Doesn't that imply the same thing, that the New Covenant replaces the Old Covenant? Actually, does the Bible even say Old Covenant anywhere, or is it just God's Covenant?
No, that’s a great point. It’s echoing the text in Jeremiah. He says, “I’m going to make a new covenant,” but the content isn’t replacement — it’s compounding. So yes, it’s called the New Covenant because it is new, but it’s not disconnected from what came before.
I largely agree with your perspective, especially regarding the significance of the covenant and the foundational role of the Jewish sources. Your emphasis on the continuity of God’s plan and the roots of the Scriptures is very compelling, even if I may not fully share every detail of your argument.
I appreciate you 😊
Great post, Mr. DeSoto! At one point, you recommend saying "Tanakh" rather than "Old Testament." While I definitely agree with you that viewing the Bible as "Old" and "New" is problematic, I also think that it is important for us to use terms that the average Christian will at least comprehend - otherwise traditional believers asking questions might dismiss us as "weird," "fringe," or even "cultish" after a short conversation with one of us. On this note, what do you think about possibly referring to the two parts of Scripture as the "Older" and "Newer" Testaments, a custom used by Greg L. Bahnsen and others?
You know, that’s a great question. If it were up to me, I’d just call Scripture Scripture. In other words, I’d reference it the same way they do in the New Testament “the Torah, the Writings, and the Prophets.”
And instead of calling the later writings the “New Testament,” I’d follow something closer to the Tree of Life approach, breaking them into simple, clear sections:
• The Gospels
• The History (Acts)
• The Letters
• The Revelation
That framing feels more natural, more Hebraic, and avoids the whole “Old vs. New” mindset altogether.
I love how you asked that question, thank you for taking the time to read it.
Very good post. Easy to see if we look at the Bible as one continuous story from start to finish. It’s all Jesus from creation to end when the earth is rolled up like a scroll. Plus, why would I want to defend something that has been made up?
Wow! I'm sitting here completely convicted. I think God is breaking me again into something more genuine and beautiful that I've missed out on for years.
P.S. My Jewish Study Bible will arrive shortly. I'm looking forward to a refreshing of the Spirit! Bless You Sergio!
MAN! That is awesome!! I can't wait to hear what you think!!! Love it!!
It's one book from the beginning (Genesis) to the end (Revelation). The complete story of Creation, Separation, Redemption, and Restoration. Past, present, future. Of our Creator and Redeemer. The first error was in falsely labeling Scripture as two different parts. Holy Scriptures, period.
If you carefully and thought fully read the Brit Chadashah (Renewed Covenant), the Tanakh is called the Scripture by the writers and they didn't have the Brit Chadashah until after their deaths. So we have Covenant Aleph and Covenant Bet, the fulfillment of Covenant
It's one covenant and one prophecy stretched out over the course of time.
It's 66 manuscripts collected into a book with many others tossed aside by Rome because they were too inconvenient to the Roman narrative.
It's many manuscripts for one simple and unavoidable reason, the lifespan of mortal man is much shorter than the story (average 70 yrs), therefore many mortal storytellers had to be used in succession, some better story tellers than others. When we refer to the story as a book we are framing it between two covers, a front cover (the beginning) and a back cover (the end). This creates a big problem because the story does have a beginning, but no ending. The story continues to be written even today. The Creator is endless, His covenant is forever. With a back cover in place we can't finish writing the story, and must begin another book to continue the story.
By framing it within the confines of two covers, we imply that the Creator has an end and that we can fit His qualities of eternity and infinity within a confined space. To do so is no different than trying to put God in your back pocket.
"Translating it as “law” turned God into a legal authority rather than a covenant Father. It made the Tanakh look like a harsh system and the New Covenant look like a divine loophole."
Oh my goodness. I'm almost 70 and for the 1st time I just read words about the "old" testament that actually FIT the way I read them as a child!
God was trying to offer a better way to interact with each other that was kinder, more fair, more just than just the "every one for themselves" style!
Mr Sergio, I know this is not a comment of the article posted. But do you have any writings on the fire of God versus just speaking is tongues. Why is the church not demonstrating the power and fire we see in the book of Acts. There aren’t many signs and wonders these days of healing. I minister at a nursing home and I’m sad each time I leave as these people are still in wheelchairs (wanting to walk again,strokes victims wanting to talk etc). I preach Jesus to them but they’re asking for the Jesus who heals like in Acts and I feel I maybe misrepresenting Him. Help if you can please! Thanks😇
Scripture, the fire of God isn’t tongues. Fire is God’s purifying, empowering presence resting on a surrendered life. And tongues, in a Hebraic sense, mean speaking by the Spirit beyond your natural ability, God giving utterance that reaches hearts in ways you couldn’t on your own.
And in my opinion, the reason we don’t see Acts-level power today is because the modern church has largely lost Acts-level obedience. God hasn’t changed — we have. But sister, you’re not misrepresenting Yeshua in that nursing home. You’re doing exactly what He commanded: loving them, witnessing, showing mercy. The fire is a life yielded… the power is His to release. Stay strong - 💪
So many pray for the fire to fall in churches and it seems to never fall so I was wondering. So baptized with Holy Ghost and fire is His presence?
Yes, “baptized with the Holy Spirit and fire” is about His presence, not a church moment. In Scripture, God’s fire is always His purifying, consuming, empowering presence, the same fire Moses saw in the bush, the same fire that fell on Sinai, the same fire Hebrews calls “our God is a consuming fire.”
And this is why, in my opinion, so many pray for fire and never see it: the modern church often wants the experience without the obedience. Tongues may show up, but the fire is when God actually takes over the vessel. That’s what John and Yeshua meant — not a moment of noise, but a life He can burn through.
Thank you again!👏🏾
Sharon, The book of Acts is still being written today. Some still carry the fire and the sword of the Spirit. You can hear and see many testimonies of salvation, healing and the fire of revival in the Church at revival.com 57 million confirmed salvations since 2000.
Thank you!😊
Marcion developed his idea of the Old and New Testaments in the mid-2nd century CE, leading to his excommunication from the Roman church in 144 CE. He believed the Old Testament God was a lesser, vengeful deity, distinct from the benevolent God revealed through Jesus in the New Testament, and that Christians should reject the Old Testament. This led him to compile his own "New Testament" canon, which included a modified version of the Gospel of Luke and ten letters of Paul, purged of any references to the Old Testament. This lead to western church father's to canonizing a bible but keeping the idea of "Old" and "New".
Yup! 100%, men have always had their and it in this..
" Repent is the START ....... "
REPENT simply means:
rethought , rethink , with great anguish in despair , change in the mind of the heart
... until we " REPENT " we will not turn any direction , but will only continue in and on our current way / path , if not then we will parish .......
PARISH simply means:
To be rendered not usable / suitable for the intended purpose , it does not mean destroyed , that will come later ... at the END .
The only begotten son says this :
I AM THE ONLY WAY
I AM THE ONLY TRUTH
I AM THE ONLY LIFE
No one comes to my father except of me .......
MARANATHA .......
The Repent Guy
Blessed are you LORD our GOD
King of the Universe , who brings
forth Fruit of the Vine
https://maryfholley.substack.com/p/who-really-follows-jesus-the-jew?r=4939op