Who is "National Israel"?

jgr · Dec 16, 2020

Guojing said:
So that link that I provided explained to you that, even though the Greek word is the same, the meaning can be either seen as Testament or Covenant, depending on the context.

While “covenant” and “testament” are the same Greek word (diatheke), “testament” stresses a special type of agreement. A “testament” is only valid after the testator dies, whereas a “covenant” is in force while the maker is living.

Jesus had not died yet, so the KJV should have translated "diatheke" in Matthew 26:28 as "covenant" rather than "testament". A wide majority of other English translations use "covenant".

So what is the Covenant that He "cut" with His disciples, who were individual Jews?

Matthew 26 YLT
26 And while they were eating, Jesus having taken the bread, and having blessed, did brake, and was giving to the disciples, and said, `Take, eat, this is my body;'
27 and having taken the cup, and having given thanks, he gave to them, saying, `Drink ye of it -- all;
28 for this is my blood of the new covenant, that for many is being poured out -- to remission of sins;

Guojing · Dec 16, 2020

jgr said:
Jesus had not died yet, so the KJV should have translated "diatheke" in Matthew 26:28 as "covenant" rather than "testament". A wide majority of other English translations use "covenant".

So what is the Covenant that He "cut" with His disciples, who were individual Jews?

Matthew 26 YLT
26 And while they were eating, Jesus having taken the bread, and having blessed, did brake, and was giving to the disciples, and said, `Take, eat, this is my body;'
27 and having taken the cup, and having given thanks, he gave to them, saying, `Drink ye of it -- all;
28 for this is my blood of the new covenant, that for many is being poured out -- to remission of sins;

I prefer the KJV for English, as stated many times already.

jgr · Dec 16, 2020

Guojing said:
I prefer the KJV for English, as stated many times already.

Based on the descriptions in your previous post, the KJV is wrong in Matthew 26:28.

You've stated previously that there is no New Covenant for individual Jews.

Yet Jesus was unmistakably extending His New Covenant to His disciples, i.e. individual Jews, in Matthew 26:26-28.

So your claim, that there is no New Covenant for individual Jews, is false.

Zao is life · Dec 16, 2020

Guojing said:
If you are keen, otherwise, we will just agree to disagree.

How are we “able ministers of the new testament?”

In 2 Corinthians 3:6 Paul is referring to himself and Titus who accompanied him on his journeys and the apostles - those who established the churches - as ministers of the New Covenant. Servants bringing the good news that the New Covenant in the blood of Christ has come.

Some people ought not to teach. They don't even understand the obvious meaning of parts of the Bible when they read it, yet they presume to be "Teachers", teaching others their own misinterpretations of the basics that are quite obvious in the very verses they misinterpret.

Guojing · Dec 16, 2020

jgr said:
Based on the descriptions in your previous post, the KJV is wrong in Matthew 26:28.

You've stated previously that there is no New Covenant for individual Jews.

Yet Jesus was unmistakably extending His New Covenant to His disciples, i.e. individual Jews, in Matthew 26:26-28.

So your claim, that there is no New Covenant for individual Jews, is false.

The KJV used Testament.

Guojing · Dec 16, 2020

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
In 2 Corinthians 3:6 Paul is referring to himself and Titus who accompanied him on his journeys and the apostles - those who established the churches - as ministers of the New Covenant. Servants bringing the good news that the New Covenant in the blood of Christ has come.

Some people ought not to teach. They don't even understand the obvious meaning of parts of the Bible when they read it, yet they presume to be "Teachers", teaching others their own misinterpretations of the basics that are quite obvious in the very verses they misinterpret.

Just because you disagree with another's interpretation, does not mean they are the ones who are misinterpreting.

Zao is life · Dec 16, 2020

Guojing said:
Just because you disagree with another's interpretation, does not mean they are the ones who are misinterpreting.

But the New Testament was first written in Greek and all translation are translations from the Greek, and the Greek uses one and the same word for the same thing that's been translated into English either as testament or as covenant but mean the same thing

It has nothing to do with interpretation because it's just a very simple fact.

Guojing · Dec 16, 2020

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
But the New Testament was first written in Greek and all translation are translations from the Greek, and the Greek uses one and the same word for the same thing that's been translated into English either as testament or as covenant but mean the same thing It has nothing to do with interpretation because it's just a very simple fact.

The same Greek word can have different meanings in English, depending on context.

I have already used sozo as an example in this thread.

Zao is life · Dec 16, 2020

Guojing said:
The same Greek word can have different meanings in English, depending on context.

I have already used sozo as an example in this thread.

I wouldn't have. Sozo sounds too much like saved, and it does not prove your point at all. Acts 14:9 the man was saved by his faith and was healed at the same time.

Zao is life · Dec 16, 2020

Edited out due repeat

Guojing · Dec 16, 2020

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
I wouldn't have. Sozo sounds too much like bozo, and it does not prove your point at all.

What a silly remark.

Zao is life · Dec 16, 2020

Guojing said:
What a silly remark.

I meant sozo sounds too much like sozo. Then I thought I better translate it into English and say saved, and it does not prove your point at all. In Acts 14:9 the man was saved by his faith and he was healed at the same time. The emphasis is on the man's salvation and the English should have translated it that way:
Acts 14:9
This one heard Paul speaking; and Paul, looking intently at him, and seeing that he had faith to be saved,

Guojing · Dec 16, 2020

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
I meant sozo sounds too much like sozo. Then I thought I better translate it into English and say saved, and it does not prove your point at all. In Acts 14:9 the man was saved by his faith and he was healed at the same time. The emphasis is on the man's salvation and the English should have translated it that way:
Acts 14:9
This one heard Paul speaking; and Paul, looking intently at him, and seeing that he had faith to be saved,

Stop grasping at straws.

It should be obvious to you, and anyone else, that saved from sins and healed from diseases do not mean the same thing at all.

Zao is life · Dec 16, 2020

Guojing said:
Stop grasping at straws.

It should be obvious to you, and anyone else, that saved from sins and healed from diseases do not mean the same thing at all.

Oh yes it does when Jesus heals the one He saves:

Matthew 9:22 KJV: But Jesus turned him about, and when he saw her, he said, Daughter, be of good comfort; thy faith hath (Greek: sozo) made thee whole. And the woman was (Greek: sozo) made whole from that hour.

Matthew 9:22 MKJV: But turning and seeing her, Jesus said, Daughter, be comforted; your faith has saved you. And the woman was saved from that hour.

The reason the MKJV translates it directly from the Greek is because the MKJV is a more literal translation than the KJV.

You should understand these things. It's very basic and very easy to understand that there is more than one word that can be used to say the same thing, and there is more than one way of saying the same thing - especially in English.

"Public Toilets" in one airport.
"Public Rest Rooms" in another airport.

A rest-room is not necessarily a toilet. You would argue that "Public Rest Rooms" are not public toilets, because that's how your logic is going in the Bible.

When someone hears and believes in Jesus, he is saved. If he is healed at the same time, then great. Then he is made whole (saved). The healing is secondary to his salvation (sozo).

Sozo sounds too much like sozo. Get it? If it's sozo in the Greek in which it was written, then it is saved, no matter how the English puts it.

Guojing · Dec 16, 2020

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
When someone hears and believes in Jesus, he is saved. If he is healed at the same time, then great. Then he is made whole (saved). The healing is secondary to his salvation (sozo).

You already said "If", so you are already admitting that salvation and healing are not the same thing, even if both English words can come from the same greek word, sozo.

I am sure you have heard of Christians who are saved, but have cancer and other diseases and were never healed from them, so stop grasping at straws.

Zao is life · Dec 16, 2020

Guojing said:
You already said "If", so you are already admitting that salvation and healing are not the same thing, even if both English words can come from the same greek word, sozo.

I am sure you have heard of Christians who are saved, but have cancer and other diseases and were never healed from them, so stop grasping at straws.

LOL. 99% of the people who read what I said will understand, and they will be shaking their heads at the way you are grasping at straws.

So I'll say it one last time: The New Testament was written in Greek. The Greek word for saved is sozo. If the Greek text says sozo then in the English it is saved, no matter how any particular English translation puts it.

Guojing · Dec 16, 2020

Fullness of the Gentiles said:
LOL. 99% of the people who read what I said will understand, and they will be shaking their heads at the way you are grasping at straws.

So I'll say it one last time: The New Testament was written in Greek. The Greek word for saved is sozo. If the Greek text says sozo then in the English it is saved, no matter how any particular English translation puts it.

You are the one who claimed that since testament and covenant came from the SAME Greek word, they therefore mean the same thing.

I am just using the sozo example to expose your illogical reasoning.

mkgal1 · Dec 16, 2020

Guojing said:
the other is the one cut with the Nation Israel in Hebrews 8:8, with the Law written in the heart of all Jews.

As BABerean2 has been pointing out, Paul explains that was a present reality for him (an Israelite) and his faithful fellow Jewish Christians of his (Paul's) day.

There are two covenants being contrasted....one is "of the flesh - Mt Sinai....the other is "of the promise". Paul writes to the Hebrews they are children of the promise.....then....in the first century Jewish Christian body of believers:

Galatians 4:22-24, 28- 29
22For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman.b 23His son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, but his son by the free woman was born through the promise

These things serve as illustrations, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children into slavery: This is Hagar.

28Now we, (d ) brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise
29At that time, however, the son born by the flesh persecuted the son born by the Spirit. It is the same now.

......What was Abraham promised?

Genesis 12:2-3

2I will make you into a great nation,

and I will bless you;

I will make your name great,

so that you will be a blessing.3I will bless those who bless you

and curse those who curse you;

and all the families of the earth

will be blessed through you.( b )”

..........how is one included in Abraham's nation?

Galatians 3:29
And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise.

mkgal1 · Dec 16, 2020

Guojing said:
the other is the one cut with the Nation Israel in Hebrews 8:8, with the Law written in the heart of all Jews.

Still.....the word "now" and the grammatical present tense is being overlooked. Here's more of that passage for context:

Hebrews 8:1-7
The point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, and who ministers in the sanctuary and true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by man. And since every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, it was necessary for this One also to have something to offer. Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest, since there are already priests who offer gifts according to the law. The place where they serve is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: “See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.”a

Now, however, Jesus has received a much more excellent ministry, just as the covenant He mediates is better and is founded on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second.

mkgal1 · Dec 16, 2020

Guojing said:
He is addressing the nation Israel

Acts 3:
22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.

23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

24 Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days.

25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.

26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

Correct. So why are they being excluded, in your interpretation, from actually receiving the cleansing of sin and renewal and presence of the Lord that is written to have been promised to them?

Acts 3:19-21
"Repent therefore and return, that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord; 20 and that He may send Jesus, the Christ appointed for you

This was posted earlier:

Guojing said:

Since the 12 are part of Israel, they will receive salvation only when the nation Israel acknowledges Jesus as their promised Messiah in his 2nd coming for them. That is the same time when the New Covenant will come to pass with Israel.

Click to expand...

........and I see no such delay. There was acknowledgement that Jesus was Messiah from those from the 12 tribes of Israel.

Who is "National Israel"?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

Similar threads