Covenants And Testaments

[1watchman]

We need to keep this simple: God's covenant with Israel WILL definitely be fulfilled in a NEW Covenant in the Millenium time when He restores Israel --the promise of the OT. The Lord Jesus is the way it will be fulfilled by revealing Himself to Israel in person (see what the prophet said of Israel for that coming day in Zech. 13:6). Israel as a people will repent, receive their Messiah, and be restored as a nation by God. Remember, Israel is destined to be God's earthly people forever, and the church in this age is the bride of Christ, which will be a heavenly people forever. Present day Israelites need to receive the Lord Jesus to be saved, or they will die in their sins.

This truth is often missed by those who do not recognize the difference between the OT and the NT.

- 1 Watchman

Hello Virgilio. I just saw your question, for I had left this issue thinking I said all that I needed. Your question about the New Covenant in the Millennium is reasonable.

Since the Lord Jesus returns at the end of the Tribulation period, reveals Himself as both the Messiah of Israel, the hope of the world, and also defeats His enemies while establishing His Kingdom, I see His reign for the Millennium as first restoring Israel (the 144,000). In doing this He establishes the New Covenant and sets Israel over the Gentiles as His government. So, I place the Millennium as the time of Israel's recovery (see also Zech. 13:6). Maybe this will clarify the matter.

- 1 Watchman

 

[virgilio]

Hello Virgilio. I just saw your question, for I had left this issue thinking I said all that I needed. Your question about the New Covenant in the Millennium is reasonable.

Since the Lord Jesus returns at the end of the Tribulation period, reveals Himself as both the Messiah of Israel, the hope of the world, and also defeats His enemies while establishing His Kingdom, I see His reign for the Millennium as first restoring Israel (the 144,000). In doing this He establishes the New Covenant and sets Israel over the Gentiles as His government. So, I place the Millennium as the time of Israel's recovery (see also Zech. 13:6). Maybe this will clarify the matter.

- 1 Watchman

Hello 1 Watchman greetings,
I speculated by your words if I am right that you are also a Despensationalist or a post Millenium. I want to tell you the truth that If possible I don't want to be involved in debate about the Scripture but just to learn and share from other brethren.
Do you have exact verse to show that Jesus will set his feet upon his return after here after tribulation?

Prophesy in OT show that Jesus has already set his feet in Mount Olive and he comes riding in a colt and greeted as Hosanna to the the Son of David, that he comes here to reign as king of Jerusalem but his people the Jews rejected him and crucified him. And then he said to Pilate my kingdom is not here, he said that because he was rejected by his own people.
After his ascension he sat at the right of Majesty and God the Father declared him as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. 1 Peter 3:22

Beside that he also said beware that you will not mislead, nor they will say nor there, do not believed because the kingdom of God is within you.
Luke 17:20-21, Colossians 1:13

About the OT and New Covenant it was prophesied about 500 years more or less before Jesus was born. When he comes here the seal of the OT which was offerings of bulls and goats and sprinkling of it's blood to altar and other things and vessel for ministry is the object or purposed of New Covenant to be abolished by the sacrificed done by Jesus which he, (Hebrews 10:8-10) illustrated in Lord's Supper which signify as a hyperbole about the cup which is death and his blood which is sacrifice for remission of our sin.

Thank you and God bless.
your brother in Christ.
virgilio

 

[heymikey80]

heymikey80 greetings,
I had noticed that you continue your arguments about the gap or faulty law, but you are not clarifying if what is law the law that is subject for discussion.
Have you read any law mentioned in book Hebrews which the subject of
amendments? None..Covenant means an agreement between two or more persons to do or refrain from doing some act it is also the same with covenant between God and man. ( covenant= to cut, stop, refrain)

No difference here -- except the idea of refraining is not emphasized by cutting a covenant. The cutting refers to the method of affirming a covenant -- to wit, sacrifice.

In OT the law was given to Moses because of iniquities of man and this covenant was sealed by offering of animals and their blood which was use as an offering for atonement of the sin of man. This the law which scripture
said is faulty because it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.Heb10:4

The Law wasn't the first to institute sacrifice. cf. Gen 15. Sacrifice long preceded the Law.

So awareness that sacrifice didn't really take away sins would've made it flatly obvious from the get-go that the Law wan't intended to fill this gap.

Did God hand down the Law, saying "a sacrifice pleasing & acceptable to God", and then later say, "Whoops, my bad, not good enough"?

God instituted it. He must've intended it this way. This isn't a fault in the Law -- it's simply a limitation us recipients should've all been aware of.

 

[riverrat]

virgillo wrote:

Do you have exact verse to show that Jesus will set his feet upon his return after here after tribulation?

Acts 1:9-12 makes it very clear!

 

[virgilio]

No difference here -- except the idea of refraining is not emphasized by cutting a covenant. The cutting refers to the method of affirming a covenant -- to wit, sacrifice.

virgilio wrote:
"refraining to cut" is referring not to cut the covenant but to replace the sacrifice of burnt offering being made which is weak and cannot remove sins of man and had been replaced by the offering of the body and blood of Jesus.

The Law wasn't the first to institute sacrifice. cf. Gen 15. Sacrifice long preceded the Law.

virgilio wrote:
agree, it was earlier done voluntarily by Noah after the flood without given law from God Gen 8

So awareness that sacrifice didn't really take away sins would've made it flatly obvious from the get-go that the Law wan't intended to fill this gap.

Did God hand down the Law, saying "a sacrifice pleasing & acceptable to God", and then later say, "Whoops, my bad, not good enough"?

virgilio wrote:
But what can I do Jesus is the one who manifested it in Hebrews 10 3:10
Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wuldest not, neither hast pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God, he taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By which we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once and for all.

God instituted it. He must've intended it this way. This isn't a fault in the Law -- it's simply a limitation us recipients should've all been aware of.

virgilio wrote:
Yes, God instituted it but Jesus said that God is not pleased and he was sent by the Father to do his will to give his life as a sacrifice for the sins of men.

We must agree with the theology of the Book of Hebrews (in particular) and of the New Testament (in general) that now that Christ has come as the Lamb of God and died “once for all” there is no longer any need for the burnt offering, the type of which our Lord is the ultimate and final antitype.

It might seem that if the burnt offering is no longer necessary, we must conclude that the burnt offering is no longer relevant, since the future meaning of that sacrifice has been realized in Christ. There is a sense in which this conclusion is absolutely correct. There is another sense in which this conclusion can be carried too far. Let me press on to show the importance and the applicability of the burnt offering to New Testament saints today.

The burnt offering (and the others, too) was not only symbolic in the sense that it represented and portrayed, in advance, the ultimate burnt offering, Jesus Christ. The burnt offering also symbolized the Old Testament saint’s faith in God’s provision for his sins, and for his access to God. The burnt offering symbolized the Old Testament saint’s faith in God, and his intention to love God with all his heart, soul, mind, and strength, and to love his neighbor as himself.

Thank you and God bless.
your brother in Christ.
virgilio

 

[virgilio]

virgillo wrote:



Acts 1:9-12 makes it very clear!

hi riverrat greetings,

I read and search the feet of Jesus in the verse you gave but nowhere can I find that he set his feet there.

Thank you and God bless.
your brother in Christ.
virgilio

 

[riverrat]

Virgilio: He went up head first. He will return the same way he left which will be feet first. Maybe Zech 14:4 will help.

 

[virgilio]

Virgilio: He went up head first. He will return the same way he left which will be feet first. Maybe Zech 14:4 will help.

Hi riverrat greetings,
I read it again but I didn't see his feet set there, so it is presumptuous to say things that are not written.

Concerning his second coming this is what was manifested in 1 Thessalonians 4:15-18 For we tell you this by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will surely not go ahead of those who have fallen asleep.

4:16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven with a shout of command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.

4:17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be suddenly caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will always be with the Lord.

4:18 Therefore encourage one another with these words.

In regards to Zechariah 14:4 On that day his feet will stand on the Mount of Olives which lies to the east of Jerusalem, and the Mount of Olives will be split in half from east to west, leaving a great valley. Half the mountain will move northward and the other half southward.

This prophesy has been fulfilled in Jesus first advent of Jesus Christ wherein the covenant was reestablished from OT to NT Galatians 4:24-26

Thank you and God bless.
your brother in Christ.
virgilio

 

[heymikey80]

No difference here -- except the idea of refraining is not emphasized by cutting a covenant. The cutting refers to the method of affirming a covenant -- to wit, sacrifice.

virgilio wrote:
"refraining to cut" is referring not to cut the covenant but to replace the sacrifice of burnt offering being made which is weak and cannot remove sins of man and had been replaced by the offering of the body and blood of Jesus.

The term here is "cut a covenant". Not "refraining to cut".

The Law wasn't the first to institute sacrifice. cf. Gen 15. Sacrifice long preceded the Law.

virgilio wrote:
agree, it was earlier done voluntarily by Noah after the flood without given law from God Gen 8

... and so the idea that this is some failing of the Law specifically, is invalidated. The Law made nothing clean, true. But that's nothing new. The Law points out uncleanness.

It wasn't as if God was unaware of this gap when He gave Israel a Law.

So awareness that sacrifice didn't really take away sins would've made it flatly obvious from the get-go that the Law wan't intended to fill this gap.

Did God hand down the Law, saying "a sacrifice pleasing & acceptable to God", and then later say, "Whoops, my bad, not good enough"?

virgilio wrote:
But what can I do Jesus is the one who manifested it in Hebrews 10 3:10
Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wuldest not, neither hast pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God, he taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By which we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once and for all.

Hm, well, what you can do is look for a theology that does justice to both facts: that God intended the Law to do what it did; and that God assigned to Christ the role that involved doing what He did.

God instituted it. He must've intended it this way. This isn't a fault in the Law -- it's simply a limitation us recipients should've all been aware of.

virgilio wrote:
Yes, God instituted it but Jesus said that God is not pleased and he was sent by the Father to do his will to give his life as a sacrifice for the sins of men.

So where does it say God was displeased with the Law?

We must agree with the theology of the Book of Hebrews (in particular) and of the New Testament (in general) that now that Christ has come as the Lamb of God and died “once for all” there is no longer any need for the burnt offering, the type of which our Lord is the ultimate and final antitype.

Yes.

It might seem that if the burnt offering is no longer necessary, we must conclude that the burnt offering is no longer relevant, since the future meaning of that sacrifice has been realized in Christ. There is a sense in which this conclusion is absolutely correct.

As far as I know, this is only correct in terms of practice of continuing sacrifice. Continuing the sacrifice would be like walking over and ogling pictures of your bride when your bride's standing at the doorway waiting to be let in.

Understanding the sacrificial is significant to determining how Jesus fulfilled it, and what He actually fulfilled.

The reasoning as to how to interpret the sacrifice being ended is described in Hebrews 10.

There is another sense in which this conclusion can be carried too far. Let me press on to show the importance and the applicability of the burnt offering to New Testament saints today.

The burnt offering (and the others, too) was not only symbolic in the sense that it represented and portrayed, in advance, the ultimate burnt offering, Jesus Christ. The burnt offering also symbolized the Old Testament saint’s faith in God’s provision for his sins, and for his access to God. The burnt offering symbolized the Old Testament saint’s faith in God, and his intention to love God with all his heart, soul, mind, and strength, and to love his neighbor as himself.

I think it was also a much more vivid picture than we normally assign to symbols. Symbols are often clean & tidy. But Leviticus 1 is anything but clean & tidy, having the sacrificer crawl up inside the carcass of a bull to clean out its hindmost organs.

When you're done with a burnt offering, you look like the sacrifice; you smell like the sacrifice; you can't but be identified with the sacrifice.

Sacrifice was also a prominent form of drama in the ancient world. It wasn't like you could go down & watch a special-effects film to understand what was going on in a religion. Sacrifice imposed a traumatic picture, and it was intentional.

 

[virgilio]

hi mikey80 greetings,
I think I need now to put on halts my discussion with you because your response to me is superfluous wherein you focuses our topic with the law which is not my point but the sacrifices being done before which is superseded by the sacrifices done by Jesus.
So, I'll bade a bye to you and I'm no longer interested in pursuing farther.

Thank you and God bless.
your brother in Christ.
virgilio

 

[riverrat]

virgilio wrote:

Originally Posted by riverrat

Virgilio: He went up head first. He will return the same way he left which will be feet first. Maybe Zech 14:4 will help.
​

Hi riverrat greetings,
I read it again but I didn't see his feet set there, so it is presumptuous to say things that are not written.

I am not being presumptuous. I am reading the text (Acts 1:9-12). Christ is standing on the mount of olives. He is lifted up into a cloud. If he is standing and is lifted up then he goes up head first. If he comes back the same way then he comes back feet first and lands on the mount of olives with his feet the same way he left. It is very clear and easy to read. In the future I would appreciate it if you did not call me presumptuous. Thanks.

 

[virgilio]

virgilio wrote:

I am not being presumptuous. I am reading the text (Acts 1:9-12). Christ is standing on the mount of olives. He is lifted up into a cloud. If he is standing and is lifted up then he goes up head first. If he comes back the same way then he comes back feet first and lands on the mount of olives with his feet the same way he left. It is very clear and easy to read. In the future I would appreciate it if you did not call me presumptuous. Thanks.

brother riverrat greetings,
Sorry, if my words had offend you but I need to tell my comments in your assumption that Jesus will set his feet on his second advent. It is only a speculation when he ascended head first, he will also come in standing position also which is the thing that I say is not written.

It was not clearly stated where is the place he should be coming because scripture said that:
Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, every one who pierced him; and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so, Amen. Revelation 1.7

Jesus himself described how he will return to earth at the end of time. He told his disciples:
"Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken;

then will appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory;

and he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other." Matthew 24.29-31.

In these words we have a far clearer picture of how Jesus will return which affirmed my first testimony in 1 Thessalonians 4:15-18 For we tell you this by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will surely not go ahead of those who have fallen asleep.

4:16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven with a shout of command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.

4:17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be suddenly caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will always be with the Lord.

4:18 Therefore encourage one another with these words.

Hope his help.
Peace and Grace
your brother in Christ.
virgilio

 

[riverrat]

Virgilio, I am not assuming anything. I am just reading the scripture as it is written. It is not hard. It is as plain as the nose on your face. It obviously does not fit your theology. I will give up at this point. I will be presumptuous again and say that you are definitely not an Apollos!

 

[virgilio]

Virgilio, I am not assuming anything. I am just reading the scripture as it is written. It is not hard. It is as plain as the nose on your face. It obviously does not fit your theology. I will give up at this point. I will be presumptuous again and say that you are definitely not an Apollos!

Hi riverrat greetings,
I hereby request that you read it again (Acts 1:9-12) just read it plainly and I'll suggest to you a guideline on how to evade error in viewing the facts that were illustrated there.

1 Corinthians 4:6 Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not take pride in one man over against another.

You read multiple times and you will not see that Jesus feet is not written in that said verse.

About your comment that I'm not Apollos, no thanks I'm so humble and timid to be compare to a saint, but I knew that you had just say it because you think that I am against with you and cannot accept that we all have one Lord Jesus Christ and we are all brothers and sisters and it happened that we have different belief and faction caused by different leaders and denomination.

Thank you and God bless
your brother in Christ.
virgilio

 

[riverrat]

Virgilio: As I said before I give up. It would just be a waste of my time to continue this discussion with you.

 

[virgilio]

Brother riverrat,
Like you my time is also precious and I only give attention because of the commandments that we love one another, however I also thanks for the attention you give me.
Bye and peace be with you God bless.
your brother in Christ
virgilio

 

[heymikey80]

hi mikey80 greetings,
I think I need now to put on halts my discussion with you because your response to me is superfluous wherein you focuses our topic with the law which is not my point but the sacrifices being done before which is superseded by the sacrifices done by Jesus.
So, I'll bade a bye to you and I'm no longer interested in pursuing farther.

Goodbye. It's not a good idea to pursue a direction that's unsupported by the facts brought to support it.

 

[virgilio]

Goodbye. It's not a good idea to pursue a direction that's unsupported by the facts brought to support it.

Hi mikey80 greetings,
Nice and I agree that it's not good idea to pursue something you do not want to know.
Thank you and God bless.
your brother in Christ.
virgilio

 

[heymikey80]

I've no interest in pursuing something that's not the truth and so won't be substantiated by facts, no. I expect few have such an interest.

That was my reason for posting http://www.christianforums.com/t7585996-5/#post58588844 .

And that is my reason for concluding as I have, that the position you're proffering doesn't have support to carry it through the challenges.

 

[virgilio]

I've no interest in pursuing something that's not the truth and so won't be substantiated by facts, no. I expect few have such an interest.

That was my reason for posting http://www.christianforums.com/t7585996-5/#post58588844 .

And that is my reason for concluding as I have, that the position you're proffering doesn't have support to carry it through the challenges.

"Have I become your enemy by telling the truth?" Paul

Hi mickey80 greetings,
I'm very glad despite you continually saying that you had no interest pursuing that's not the truth and so won't be substantiated by facts but your action show that you are really interested by the truth that I may reveal and earn you the salvation everyman is indeed dying for.
If, I'm wrong, why do you continue to reply in my post hence I'd tell you I'll halt or put to stop our conversation?

First step is your post signature verse in Galatians 4:16 I'll turn the table on you as what have been written and ask by Pilate to Jesus in John 18:38 if, What is the truth?

Thank you and God bless
your brother in Christ.
virgilio