LindaR

I grew up in churches that taught the 10% tithe as biblical for a believer, but it wasn't until my father wrote a dissertation on it for college and later let me read it, that I began to understand it wasn't the case.
The problems we face when pushing this view, is that A: too often if believers don't feel almost forced to give, they won't. B: Too often, many believe that teaching the tithe is not for believers today, that means we are teaching people NOT to give. When I began to teach this in my church, with the full of scripture behind me, immediately i was told "If people aren't taught to tithe, they won't give!" Sadly, that is borne out to be quite true. But I won't perpetuate something I find to be untrue, for the sake of getting people to give: if they cannot be a cheerful giver, and love the Lord and the wor enough to give freely, then I must place that into God's hands.

I would think that the Adamic covenant would involve blood.  After the fall (after Adam ate of the forbidden fruit), didn't God provide a "covering" for Adam and Eve's nakedness?  An animal (which might have been a lamb/sheep) had to be killed to provide that "covering"?  Adam and Eve tried to cover their "nakedness" with fig leaves (works), but God provided His covering (coats of skins):

Genesis 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

Genesis 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

I had thought about that, but while I know that an animal was slain with which to cover them, the blood doesn't seem connected to the covenant-it MAY have been, but the passage doesn't seem to indicate it. Perhaps it had more to do with a blood sacrifice for their sin, the blood covering their sin, as the skins covered their flesh, but not sure it was part of the covenant, per se. But I may be wrong.

Elephants in the circus sideshow tent are chained to a three foot metal stake which is hammered in the ground.  They are exposed to the chain from their youth.  
As as a youth, the elephant pulls constantly on the chain, trying to get away.  As it gets older, the elephant resigns itself to the belief that it can never escape that chain,... even though it could easily snap the chain as an adult and escape captivity if it tried.
Like the elephant in a circus sideshow tent with a chain on its back leg that has come to the conclusion that being held captive by that chain is his fate, many people have been conditioned to believe a lie that they must keep part, or all, of the Law that was never meant for them.
Because they hear the lies from the pulpit so much, and because they have concluded that the man in the pulpit is telling the truth, they have concluded that they must keep The Law in order to obtain Grace.

This is an excellent Bible study on the Eight Covenants of the Bible by Dr. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, who is a Jewish believer in Jesus Christ.

The Eight Covenants of the Bible by Dr. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum
http://www.messianicassociation.org/ezine17-af.covenants.htm (Part 1): The Edenic, Adamic, Noahic, and Abrahamic Covenants
http://www.messianicassociation.org/ezine18-af.covenants.htm (Part 2): The Mosaic Covenant
http://www.messianicassociation.org/ezine19-af.covenants.htm (Part 3): The Land (Palestinian), Davidic, and New Covenants
Here’s the Conclusion of all three parts:

CONCLUSION
All spiritual blessings are for believers in the Messiah, whether they are Jews or Gentiles. And through His death on the cross for their sins, believers reap spiritual benefits that would never be theirs otherwise. The eight covenants of the Bible are very explicit in their provisions and are valuable for a proper understanding of Scripture.
***********************************
I need to add a short disclaimer to Part 1 concerning Dr. Fruchtenbaum's teaching on the Edenic and Adamic Covenant.  I do not agree with him concerning his use of Ezekiel 28:11-19 and the fall of Satan.  Also, I do not agree with his teaching on Genesis 3:15 where he says:
“The prophecy of Genesis 3:15 led to the events of Genesis 6:1-4 when Satan tried to corrupt the seed of the woman and will lead to the future supernatural conception of the Antichrist.”
 
 
 
 

I read your sermon and SFIC is not the only person who disagrees with you.  I also disagree with you. To call SFIC a heretic (as candlelight has done) because he doesn’t agree with your conclusions, is uncalled for and by doing this, you (and candlelight) are bearing false witness against another brother.  Are you and candlelight going to also call me a heretic because I also disagree with you? 
 
Here are some excerpts from another brother’s conclusions (with whom I agree) about Melchizedek being Jesus Christ.  He also disagrees with your conclusions...is he also a "heretic"?
 
Your “proof” wasn’t “proof” at all.  Your reasoning is flawed, IMO.  I think you WANT Melchizedek to be Jesus Christ and for this reason you “tie” Scriptures together in your mind in order to make it work....but it only “works” for you.
 
"The Bible makes it clear that Melchizedek was simply A MAN...
 
Hebrews 7:4
Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.
 
The Bible also makes it clear that Christ would be a priest AFTER THE ORDER OF Melchizedek.  Melchizedek began(?) a priesthood.  Christ is the successor to that priesthood.  Christ had to be a priest, but he wasn't from the line of Levi...from which the priests under the law came.  They were priests by birth into their family and the law.  Christ was/is a priest by virtue of God's oath.
 
Simply stated, there were two lines of priests who served God.  The order of Melchizedek, and the Levitical/Aaronic priesthood.  The Levitical/Aaronic priesthood replaced Melchizedek's order, and Christ again replaced the Levitical/Aaronic priesthood with the order of Melchizedek. Christ didn't "come back" as Melchizedek; he simply fulfilled his Priestly office as a priest after Melchizedek's order and as Melchizedek's successor.
 
Hebrews 7:15
And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
 
If Melchizedek was Christ, then why does that verse say that "ANOTHER" priest would arise after the similitude (resemblance) of Melchizedek? "ANOTHER" being the key word..."ANOTHER" means "not the same"!!! Yes, "another" could refer to "another besides the Levitical/Aaronic priests, but it also applies in general.  Christ is not the same as the Levitical/Aaronic priests, and though similar to Melchizedek, Christ isn't the same as him either. If Christ were Melchizedek, why didn't it say...And it is yet far more evident: for Christ must resume his role as Melchisedec the priest.
 
To me, it's OBvious that Melchizedek and Christ aren't the same...the Bible just draws similarities between them to show why Christ is a priest AFTER THE ORDER OF Melchizedek."