Question:

Question

Answer:

What a tragedy! There are actually some members in the church that teach that Christians need to divorce their present mate because of having been previously involved in a divorce. Wow! This is an absolutely and pitifully deceptive teaching!  And these sorts of doctrines need to be settled and denounced immediately, once and for all.


Response by Darrell Hamilton

So what you are saying is that it is perfectly acceptable to grant a divorce for any cause?  You are even saying so in the face of Jesus saying that "It was not so from the beginning" (Matthew 19:8). 

If you make a vow to God to live with a woman as her husband and then break the vow by divorcing that woman, you have broken covenant with God.  If you later remarry, according to Jesus in Matthew 19, you are an adulterer.  Adultery is the act of having sexual relations with a person to whom you are not married while being married to another.  So, Jesus is essentially saying that if you divorce and marry another, the second marriage is not really a marriage.  If it was a legal (in God's eye) marriage, then Jesus would have said the person was guilty of polygamy. Instead he said the person was guilty of adultery -- meaning that God does not recognize the second marriage.  We would say that the couple is just "shacking up".   So, you would then be in a real bind, because the law of the land says you are legally married, but the law of God says that you are just living together. 

So, if you are in a marriage that God does not recognize, how do you rectify the situation?


I've always been taught that when a person refuses to let go of God's OLD Covenant (Matthew 19) while trying to be married to Christ and His NEW Covenant (Acts 2 - Revelation 22), they then become a spiritual adulterer (Romans 7) and that causes them to fall from Grace (Galatians 5).  I really appreciate your faith. Would you be able to scoot me the answers to these questions:

1.  Was Jesus sent  "ONLY"  to the lost sheep of ISRAEL?

2.  Did Jesus say that he came to Israel to "Fulfill" the Law of Moses, or to reveal NEW Covenant Doctrine?

3.  Every single word that Jesus spoke before the cross were the words of His Father, NOT His own words.  Including when Jesus states, "You have heard that it was said, but  " I "  say unto you."  And over 100 times in the gospels Jesus declares that He is referring to the Law of Moses, Does Jesus EVER state that He is speaking His own words, declaring that He is now the author, revealing NEW Covenant Law?

4.  When Jesus told Nicodemus that he needed to be born again, what was Nicodemus supposed to do at that very moment?

5.  Was Jesus King of His New Covenant Kingdom at the time of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John before the cross?

6.  Was Jesus High Priest of His New Covenant Kingdom at the time of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John before the cross?

7.  What High Priest was mediating the 'supposed' NEW anger Law that Jesus was instituting in Matthew 5:22 when He immediately connects this Law with the Jews, under the Law of Moses, leaving their gift at the altar?

8.  The immediate following Sundays after Jesus shared the last Passover with His Apostles, did His followers partake in the Lord's Supper?

9.  Did Jesus posses ALL authority prior to offering the Father His perfect sacrifice?

10.  As an OLD Covenant Prophet, did Jesus have authority to enforce a NEW Covenant while the Father's OLD Covenant was still binding?

11.  Will the Testament of a Testator, hold up in court, if 1/4 of their Will was revealed prior to their death, and then the remaining 3/4 of their Will is revealed AFTER their death, when much of the 3/4 contradicts their previously revealed 1/4?

12.  Is the NEW Covenant the Father's Covenant or the Son's Covenant?

13.  How did Paul hear of the complete NEW Covenant after he became an Apostle?

14.  In 1486 A.D. did Johannes Pruss of Strasbourg, France, a member of the false Catholic denomination, place an unauthorized  'New Testament'  Title Page in between the books of Malachi and Matthew?  (If so, how immense have the repercussions been for 520 years ?)

15.  Is just SOME of the Scripture in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John (before the Cross), now binding New Covenant Law?

16.  Could ALL Scripture in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John (before the Cross) now be considered binding New Covenant Law?

17.  By what RULE do you determine which Scripture in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John (before the Cross) is, or is not, binding New Covenant Law?


Note from Jeff Hamilton:

See the lessons "Questions" for a discussion of how people argue with questions instead of addressing issues. See Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John: Old Testament or New Testament? for a study on many of the issues raised. See "How Do They Do That?" for a discussion of the techniques used for misleading people in regards to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.


Response from Darrell Hamilton:

So, if I could summarize your points, what you are saying is that anything Jesus said only applies to the kingdom of God if it was either confirmed by the apostles or could be irrefutably shown to not apply to the Law of Moses.  Stated another way your point would be, Jesus primarily offered commentary on the Law of Moses and only occasionally discussed what would be in the new covenant.

Of course that still does not solve Matthew 19, since Jesus appealed to Genesis 2 for his rule on marriage and the law of Genesis 2 was established 2000-3000 years before Moses.


Jesus never discussed what would be in the NEW Covenant, but he did 'prophesy' the Lord's Supper and the new birth. Absolutely EVERY word Jesus spoke before the Cross was the voice of the Father.  No question.  Why?  Because Jesus said so, just like He said He was sent 'ONLY' to the lost sheep of Israel.

I don't understand why (one would say) the Father can't tell the Jews (like He did) that He allowed Moses to change His original Law.  That's no big leap, or is it?


Response from Darrell Hamilton:

I've bounced back and forth between answering your questions and not answering them.  I see little value in answering them when it is very obvious from the way the questions are stated that we are starting from two distinctly different ways of looking at who Jesus is.  If I were to answer them, I would probably answer most of them from Isaiah or Hebrews and given the way that you split the distinction between laws given to Jews and laws given to Gentiles, I'm not at all convinced that you see either of those books as authoritative in your life. 

I believe that Hebrews 1:1-2 and 2:1-4 explains it well enough. Hebrews 1:3-end of the chapter elaborates on Jesus’ credentials as the final Spokesman for God, establishing the fact beyond a doubt why He is the One. This then compounds the value of the next section: "For this reason we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away from it. For if the word spoken through angels proved unalterable, and every transgression and disobedience received a just penalty, how will we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? After it was at the first spoken through the Lord, it was confirmed to us by those who heard, God also testifying with them, both by signs and wonders and by various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit according to His own will." (Hebrews 2:1-4 NASB)

What was "first spoken through the Lord" is contrasted with the Law, "if the word spoken through angels proved unalterable, and every transgression and disobedience received a just penalty?" Was Jesus therefore merely commenting on the Law as He was in the process of fulfilling it, or was God speaking through Him announcing the covenant to be sealed with His death, burial and resurrection?

As with the Old Testament prophecies, while they were accurate comments and statements concerning the time they were spoken, they also referred to the Christ. In the same way Jesus was dealing with the present situation while preparing the people for the coming kingdom: "But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you" (Matthew 12:28).


"But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you" (Matthew 12:28).

Are you saying that God's last kingdom, the church, was upon the Pharisees in Matthew 12?


Response from Darrell Hamilton:

What other kingdom could he be referring to?  There are only two kingdoms of consequence in the Bible.  One was the physical kingdom of Israel and the other was the spiritual kingdom of Christ.  Jesus said in John 18: 36 "My kingdom is not of this world.  If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews.  But now my kingdom is from another place."

Jesus used the present tense in the sentence when describing the kingdom.  He could not have been referring to the physical kingdom of Israel because that would have been a kingdom on this world.  He could only be talking about the spiritual kingdom. 

Rather than trying to look at the scripture and get it to say something other than what it says, you have the option of just letting it teach.  You assume that the kingdom and the church are the same thing in both place and time. However, the kingdom is spoken of in both future and present tense in the gospels by Jesus and in the past, present and future tenses by the apostles.  What you have to understand about the kingdom is that it has different aspects based on the audience, the time and the object of the sentence. 

When Jesus spoke in Mark 9:1 of some being alive to see the kingdom of God come with power and yet in John 18 he refers to it as already being there, we have to ask what changed.  One thing that changed was the target of the statement.  The audience in Mark 9 was the target and they were not in the kingdom yet, but would see it come in their lifetime.  Jesus was the target of the John 18 and he is clearly affirming that he is already in the kingdom. 

When we understand who Jesus is, it is not at all surprising that he could be in the kingdom prior to his death.  He was the "crown prince" as it were.  We and the Jews could not be because our sins have separated us from God.  We can only enter the kingdom at the invitation of the only person who could enter the kingdom on merit. 

Hence the word "church," which in the Greek is translated from a word that means "the called out".  When used in its original form we are "called out" from the world (or sin) to enter into his kingdom.  Those that are called out of the world are the "church". 

To those who were addressed in Mark 9, there is not much of a practical difference in the church (who) and the kingdom (where they reside).  The kingdom already existed and Jesus was a part of it, however, none of us could see it or enter it until it was revealed with power.  The church, though, could not exist until there were people who were called out of the world.  If we can neither see nor enter it, then from our limited point of view, it is as if it did not exist.  The kingdom was revealed at the the time that the rules for entry were announced, i.e., on the day of Pentecost.

This also solves your conundrum with the apostles and the Lord's Supper.  Between the cross and Pentecost the kingdom had not been revealed.  The Lord's Supper was for the members of the kingdom.  Since no one was a member, no one had to partake. 

To then address what seems to be your biggest concern, the gospels were all written after Jesus rose from the dead by men who were inspired by God to do so.  Therefore, as John attests in John 20:31, "these were written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."  John here is adamantly stating that if there was something worthy of being left out (because it was just a commentary on the old covenant), that John already left it out.  All that was left (the entire book of John in this case) was useful for understanding who the King is.


Response from Darrell Hamilton (Original questions in green)

1.  Was Jesus sent  "ONLY"  to the lost sheep of ISRAEL?

No.  Although Matthew 10:6 and a few others sound like he was only concerned with the Jews, we find :  "I, the LORD, have called you in righteousness; I will take hold of your hand. I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles, to open eyes that are blind, to free captives from prison and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness" (Isaiah 42:6-7).  

This is a prophesy about Jesus and it says that Jesus' purpose all along was going to be to save the Gentiles also.  Therefore, since the scriptures can not lie, Jesus must have been referring to the spiritual house of Israel -- which was also lost.  Also, Paul said several times in Romans that he had to go to the Jews first.  Just because he went to the Jews first did not mean that the game plan did not include Gentiles. 

2.  Did Jesus say that he came to Israel to "Fulfill" the Law of Moses, or to reveal NEW Covenant Doctrine?

Yes.  "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.  I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished" (Matthew 5:17-18 NIV).

Note though, that the fulfillment is conditional until everything is accomplished.  That means that an end is coming and he knows how the end comes.

3.  Every single word that Jesus spoke before the cross were the words of His Father, NOT His own words.  Including when Jesus states, "You have heard that it was said, but  " I "  say unto you."  And over 100 times in the gospels Jesus declares that He is referring to the Law of Moses, Does Jesus EVER state that He is speaking His own words, declaring that He is now the author, revealing NEW Covenant Law?

Well I'm not going to bother to count, but given your record of accuracy on the gospels, I suspect it is less than 100 times.  Although you would be perfectly correct to prove a point even if he only said it once. 

However, there is the verse in Isaiah that is quoted above plus:

"This is what the LORD says: "In the time of my favor I will answer you, and in the day of salvation I will help you; I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people, to restore the land and to reassign its desolate inheritances" (Isaiah 49:8 NIV).

"Give ear and come to me; hear me, that your soul may live. I will make an everlasting covenant with you, my faithful love promised to David.  See, I have made him a witness to the peoples, a leader and commander of the peoples.  Surely you will summon nations you know not, and nations that do not know you will hasten to you, because of the LORD your God, the Holy One of Israel, for he has endowed you with splendor" (Isaiah 55:3-5 NIV).

""The time is coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.  It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them, " declares the LORD.  "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people"" (Jeremiah 31:31-33 NIV).

There are actually several more prophesies in the Old Testament that speak of Jesus coming to establish a covenant.

Also Jesus himself said, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins" (Matthew 26:28 NIV).  By this he shows that he is establishing a covenant.  And since he could not be reestablishing the old covenant, he must be establishing a new one.

"Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God."" (John 6:68-69 NIV).  Peter confirms that Jesus' words are those of eternal life. 

"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" (John 12:48 NIV).  Jesus said that his words would be the standard by which all are judged.  That would be a pretty petty statement to make if his words were only going to judge those from the time he spoke them here until his death.  Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that all his words were binding and they would be binding forever.

4.  When Jesus told Nicodemus that he needed to be born again, what was Nicodemus supposed to do at that very moment?

Believe.

5.  Was Jesus King of His New Covenant Kingdom at the time of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John before the cross?

"and asked, "Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star in the east and have come to worship him"" (Matthew 2:2 NIV). 

"The written notice of the charge against him read: THE KING OF THE JEWS" (Mark 15:26 NIV).

If he was born king and died king, then he was king all of his life.

6.  Was Jesus High Priest of His New Covenant Kingdom at the time of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John before the cross?

I'm not aware that he was declared high priest before his resurrection other than through the Old Testament prophets.  "Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him and was designated by God to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek" (Hebrews 5:8-10 NIV).

7.  What High Priest was mediating the 'supposed' NEW anger Law that Jesus was instituting in Matthew 5:22 when He immediately connects this Law with the Jews, under the Law of Moses, leaving their gift at the altar?

Here I have no clue what you are asking. Are you trying to mix the particulars of the examples of everyday life in his lifetime with something we are supposed to do?  And what would mediation have to do with any of it? 

8.  The immediate following Sundays after Jesus shared the last Passover with His Apostles, did His followers partake in the Lord's Supper?

It is not recorded and it would be speculation on our part to assume either way. 

9.  Did Jesus posses ALL authority prior to offering the Father His perfect sacrifice?

"For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.  Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the LORD Almighty will accomplish this" (Isaiah 9:6 -7 NIV).

10.  As an OLD Covenant Prophet, did Jesus have authority to enforce a NEW Covenant while the Father's OLD Covenant was still binding?

"In the case of a will, it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living" (Hebrews 9:16-17 NIV).

"Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him" (John 14:21 NIV).

11.  Will the Testament of a Testator, hold up in court, if 1/4 of their Will was revealed prior to their death, and then the remaining 3/4 of their Will is revealed AFTER their death, when much of the 3/4 contradicts their previously revealed 1/4?

I don't know what this has to do with anything, but yes a will is completely enforceable  even if 100% of it was revealed prior to the death of the testator.  It makes a good murder mystery plot when the murderer thinks they know what the will is and then are surprised to find that the rest of the will makes what they knew of little value -- or a different will was the actual one. 

I think, though, that you are insinuating that there is some sort of contradiction between what is revealed in the gospels and what is revealed in the remainder of the New Testament.  I have never found any contradiction.  I have met some people who would like there to be some, but usually it works out that they just don't like the consequences of what it means when the passages are reconciled.

12.  Is the NEW Covenant the Father's Covenant or the Son's Covenant?

Yes. "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30 NIV).

13.  How did Paul hear of the complete NEW Covenant after he became an Apostle?

"but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God" (I Corinthians 2:10 NIV).

"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" (John 14:26 NIV).

14.  In 1486 A.D. did Johannes Pruss of Strasbourg, France, a member of the false Catholic denomination, place an unauthorized  'New Testament'  Title Page in between the books of Malachi and Matthew?  (If so, how immense have the repercussions been for 520 years ?)

I did some looking on the Internet for this Pruss fellow and I found some references to a printer by that name who lived about that time.  I could find no reference of him being associated with any controversy concerning the Bible.  I also found a reference in a rather nicely outlined history of the Bible that said that the 27 books of the New Testament were defined in 317 AD by Athenasius.   While some apostasy was already at work by then, the Catholic church really didn't come into full bloom until about 506 AD (or was it 605?) 

Now, it is fully possible that Pruss was the first one to add a separator page in a printed Bible, but printing was still a new thing in the 1480's.  The first Bible was only printed in 1455.  And since no one else seems to know or care about what Pruss did, I suspect that his added page has nothing to do with denominations being formed in the last 500 years. 

The whole charge against Pruss is a railing accusation. (See Jude 9)

15.  Is just SOME of the Scripture in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John (before the Cross), now binding New Covenant Law?

"Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him" (John 14:21 NIV). 

16.  Could ALL Scripture in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John (before the Cross) now be considered binding New Covenant Law?

"If you love me, you will obey what I command" (John 14:15 NIV)

17.  By what RULE do you determine which Scripture in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John (before the Cross) is, or is not, binding New Covenant Law?

"You are my friends if you do what I command" (John 15:14 NIV).


> What other kingdom could he be referring to?

Jesus is simply stating that His miracles were of God's Kingdom and not Satan's.

There absolutely is no such thing as a Kingdom without a King.  Jesus was not 'Resurrected' King of His NEW Covenant Kingdom in Matthew 12.  Or anywhere else before the Cross.

> When we understand who Jesus is, it is not at all surprising that he could be in the kingdom prior to his death.

IMPOSSIBLE. You need to abandon such an earthly Doctrine. God's word is not hocus pocus, it's governed by God's own King, Spirit, Prophet RULES.  It's not 'flighty'.

> He was the "crown prince" as it were.  We and the Jews could not be because our sins have separated us from God.  We can only enter the kingdom at the invitation of the only person who could enter the kingdom on merit.'

This sounds so many of the bizarre Denominational teachings floating around in cyberspace, no offense.


> This also solves your conundrum with the apostles and the Lord's Supper.

There is absolutely no conundrum with the Lord's Supper. The only conundrum that occurs is when Traditionalist try to say that Jesus 'instituted' the Lord's Supper at the Last Passover Meal.

10  Reasons why it was IMPOSSIBLE for Jesus to"institute"  the "Lord's Supper" at the Last Passover Meal. 

1.  Jesus is prophesying to His 11 Apostles.  Prophecy is NEVER binding NEXT Covenant Law.

2.  Christ had not died so no one could remember his Death in observing the ‘Lord’s supper.”

3.  There were no New Testament “Christians” to remember the Death of Christ and the shedding of His Blood for the remission of their sins.

4. Matthew 26, Mark 14 and Luke 22 were not on the "first day of the week.”

5. The New Testament “gospel” had not been preached.

6. The New Testament “church” had not been established.

7. No one had been “born again.”

8. No one was living the “Christian” life.

9. Jesus was not yet Lord over His own Death.  For this to be possible Jesus had to live a sinless life until dying in order to be resurrected.  Only then could He be 'remembered' as 'Lord' over Death.  Just because Jesus could raise someone from the dead, did not at all, make Him Lord over death.  Prophets raised the dead before.  For a 'Lord's Table' to exist, Jesus had to be Lord over Death.  There was no “Lord’s” Table.

10.  Jesus NEVER, in any other instance, ever, gave any NEW Covenant Law before the Cross.

 >  is adamantly stating that if there was something worthy of being left out (because it was just a commentary on the old covenant), that John already left it out.  All that was left (the entire book of John in this case) was useful for understanding who the King is.

Exactly! And to understand that He was ONLY God's Last Old Covenant Prophet prior to the Cross. And to see that Jesus nailed each one of the  'Fathers'  words that He spoke -  To The Cross.

If Christ's NEW Covenant Kingdom was upon Nicodemus, what was he supposed to do 'immediately' when Jesus told him that he needed to be 'Born of the water and Spirit'?

Response by Darrell Hamilton

1.  Based on what proof can you say that there is no kingdom without a king?  Throughout history there have been many kingdoms without kings.  It usually occurs during a transition period, but that does not negate the fact that it is possible to have a kingdom without a king.

2.  Your second reply is an assertion that is designed to get me to concede the point based solely and completely on your say-so. 

3.  Your third point is like the second.  You sound like you are trying to intimidate me into giving up what I have stated based solely on your word.  Intimidation is not a proof or an argument.  But it sounds like you have a problem with believing that Jesus was perfect and that he could not have obtained his kingdom by merit.  Either that or you are trying to say that you are sinless and have no need to enter the kingdom.

4.  "For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 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."  In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me."  For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes" (I Corinthians 11:23-26 NIV).  This sounds to me like Paul is saying that Jesus instituted it.  This does not sound like Paul had decided to go back to some event and then create this memorial on his own accord. 

To your 10 points:
(1) This is simply an assertion.  You have to assume the major premise is true, i.e., that Jesus could only be prophesying.
(2) Paul said he did in I Corinthinas.  I will trust Paul long before I trust anyone else.
(3) Paul was writing to Christians.  Therefore there were Christians to remember him by.  (By the way, New Testament Christian is redundant).
(4) I fail to see how the day of the week that it was established on has anything to do with whether it is authorized.
(5) A few of the several places where the gospel was shown to be preached prior to the death of Jesus.

"The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God" (Mark 1:1 NIV).
"So they set out and went from village to village, preaching the gospel and healing people everywhere" (Luke 9:6 NIV).
"One day as he was teaching the people in the temple courts and preaching the gospel, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, together with the elders, came up to him" (Luke 20:1 NIV).

(6) I fail to see any link between the establishment of the church and whether or not Jesus instituted his memorial.
(7) At the time of Jesus' death, that is correct that no one had been born again.  However, like the day of the week comment, I fail to see any connection between this point and whether Jesus instituted the memorial.
(8) Actually there is no such thing as a "Christian life" in the scriptures.  "Christian" is a noun and not an adjective. Believers were not called Christians for a period of time even after the gospel was being preached.  But again, so what? The fact that no one was called a Christian by the end of Jesus' life does not have any bearing on if he instituted the memorial that we now call the Lord's Supper.
(9) "And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me"" (Luke 22:19 NIV). Once again you spoke that which you did not know.  Jesus had not died yet he told them it was in remembrance.  However you came to your logic, it conflicts with what Jesus said.
(10) The whole of point ten is laughable.  The only possible way that you can come to that conclusion is to begin by believing it is true and then ignoring all the passages in the four gospels.  I'll give one example,   "You call me 'Teacher' and 'Lord,' and rightly so, for that is what I am.  Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another's feet.  I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you" (John 13:13-15 NIV).  Jesus was going to die in less than 24 hours from the time he said this.  Do you really think he could only have meant for it to be carried out for one day?  The obvious answer is no.  He was teaching up to the last, the things that they will be required to do forever. 

5.  Obviously you missed the entire point of John in "Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book.  But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name" (John 20:30-31 NIV).  Jesus was not just an Old Testament Prophet.  He was the Son of God.  He was the Christ.  (By the way, "Christ" means "the anointed one" and is a word generally reserved for kings).

You seem to be proclaiming a doctrine that is not found in the scriptures.  Note that you quoted no scripture.  I've replied by scripture.