Covenants

[ddub85]

oops!

 

[ddub85]

@ MamaZ

That (justification through Christ) would be salvation, not a new law. Besides, Gentiles were never under the law.

God Bless!

 

[Apollos1]

Ddub -

We have both had our say.

I plan to write and post my summary which will need no direct reply from
you. You may want to do the same.

I hope to have that done by the end of this week.

 

[ddub85]

@ Apollos

No prob. It truly has been a pleasure.

God Bless!

 

[Apollos1]

Ddub -

I have a question. I read what you said about this verse at least 3 times and I still don't know what YOU think it says, or what YOU think it means. Help me out - I am certain you will not mind...

2 Cor 3:6 - "...[God] also made us sufficient as ministers of a new covenant; not of the letter, but of the spirit..." ASV

What is Paul trying to say here ???
What thought is Paul attempting to convey to the reader?
Do you know?

 

[ddub85]

@ Apollos

Ddub -

I have a question. I read what you said about this verse at least 3 times and I still don't know what YOU think it says, or what YOU think it means. Help me out - I am certain you will not mind...
2 Cor 3:6 - "...[God] also made us sufficient as ministers of a new covenant; not of the letter, but of the spirit..." ASV
What is Paul trying to say here ???

First, let me be clear about what Paul DOES NOT say. It DOES NOT say that anyone is under the NC.
It says we are "ministers" of the NC. Minister; diakonos (G1249)
1) one who executes the commands of another, esp. of a master, a servant, attendant, minister
a) the servant of a king
b) a deacon, one who, by virtue of the office assigned to him by the church, cares for the poor and has charge of and distributes the money collected for their use
c) a waiter, one who serves food and drink
Paul is saying we are to understand and teach, pass on. God has given us the tools to minister. However, the meal isn't for the waiter, the meal is for the recipient. The minister is the giver, NOT the receiver. Just like Jonah was called to minister to the people of Nineveh, Paul is declaring us ministers of the Nc, NOT recipients of the NC.

What thought is Paul attempting to convey to the reader?
Do you know?

Paul is telling us to correctly divide the word of God, and be ministers of that word. Paul is in no way saying that we are under the NC.

God Bless!

 

[Apollos1]

Last time Apollos said - 2 Cor 3:6 - "...[God] also made us sufficient as ministers of a new covenant; not of the letter, but of the spirit..." ASV

What is Paul trying to say here ???
What thought is Paul attempting to convey to the reader?
Do you know?

Ddub replied - Paul is telling us to correctly divide the word of God, and be ministers of that word. Paul is in no way saying that we are under the NC.



LOL !!! I thought Paul told us to do this in 2 Timothy 2:15. Funny - Paul uses different words and sentence structure there to convey that thought!

Sorry Ddub, but your reply is way too disingenuous to believe. I dare say that ain't no one here "buying" this mule!!

Also -
Hebrews 9:15 tells us that Jesus IS the mediator of a NEW covenant.
Hebrews 12:24 tells us that Jesus IS the mediator of a NEW covenant.
But maybe these two verse mean to "correctly divide the word"...???
NAH !!!

Anyway, thanks for the laugh! When someone can't see a simple truth like this one, it makes them look quite goofy when they say things like you did.

I will be out of town on work related travel. I will catch up with you then. It gives you an extra week to figure out what 1 Corinthians 3:6 means - lol!

 

[ddub85]

@ Apollos

Last time Apollos said - 2 Cor 3:6 - "...[God] also made us sufficient as ministers of a new covenant; not of the letter, but of the spirit..." ASV
What is Paul trying to say here ???
What thought is Paul attempting to convey to the reader?
Do you know?
Ddub replied - Paul is telling us to correctly divide the word of God, and be ministers of that word. Paul is in no way saying that we are under the NC.

LOL !!! I thought Paul told us to do this in 2 Timothy 2:15. Funny - Paul uses different words and sentence structure there to convey that thought!
Sorry Ddub, but your reply is way too disingenuous to believe. I dare say that ain't no one here "buying" this mule!!

Paul tells you to "minister" and you ain't buyin' it? Instead, you've decided that Paul has told you that you're under the NC, when he actually tells you to "minister". Wow. I guess that's between you and God.
Look, the bottom line is that you have NO SCRIPTURE... NONE, ZERO, ZILCH, NADA, NIL, NOTHING- that says you're under the NC. When it's shown to you that the scriptures you've leaned on and incorrectly interpreted don't say what you thought, it upsets you greatly. I understand that. But you know what? The truth is the truth, and will remain the truth. I really can't help you with that. You must learn to accept the truth, and take God's word as He has given it to you.

Also -
Hebrews 9:15 tells us that Jesus IS the mediator of a NEW covenant.
Hebrews 12:24 tells us that Jesus IS the mediator of a NEW covenant.
But maybe these two verse mean to "correctly divide the word"...???
NAH !!!

Christ IS the Mediator of the NC. So what would be your point? No one is arguing that point. We AGREE on that. But for some odd reason you think that because Christ is Mediator, that means we're under that covenant, which is simply incorrect. And I also notice that you neglected to mention the fact that Gal 3:20 tells us that Christ isn't the Mediator of one, which clearly negates your point. That is what I would consider to be "disingenuous".

Anyway, thanks for the laugh! When someone can't see a simple truth like this one, it makes them look quite goofy when they say things like you did.

The simple truth is that the Bible NEVER says we're under the NC, nor that the NC is for Gentiles, and you've listed NO SCRIPTURE that disagrees with those facts. That would be the simple truth.

I will be out of town on work related travel. I will catch up with you then. It gives you an extra week to figure out what 1 Corinthians 3:6 means - lol!

It doesn't mean we're under the NC, as it never says that. It means we are "ministers" of the NC, NOT under the NC, yet you claim that Paul is incorrect. The truth hurts, it cuts like a knife, but it will also set you free. Allow God's word to set you free.

God Bless!

 

[Apollos1]

Ddub –

The passage under consideration is:

2 Cor 3:6 - "...[God] also made us sufficient as ministers of a new covenant; not of the letter, but of the spirit..." ASV

Ddub replied - Paul is telling us to correctly divide the word of God, and be ministers of that word. Paul is in no way saying that we are under the NC.

I hate to say it but your theology is making you look foolish. Anyone that can see through a ladder knows what Paul is saying. Paul was telling the Corinthains that they, as well as he, had been MADE (past tense) ministers of the NEW covenant.

There is one BIG questions that remain for you in this verse. You may be able to salvage some plausibility IF you can give any type of credible response…

WHY does Paul use the word COVENANT (“DIATHEKE”) in this verse – 1 Corinthians 3:6 ??? WHY didn’t Paul use the word for WORD (“LOGOS”) if in fact Paul was telling us to “correctly divide the word” as you attempt to claim???
- - - - - - - - - -

Ddub said - Paul tells you to "minister" and you ain't buyin' it? Instead, you've decided that Paul has told you that you're under the NC, when he actually tells you to "minister". Wow. I guess that's between you and God.

C’mon Ddub, Paul says no such thing. Paul does NOT tell anyone in this verse “to minister”, but rather that they God had MADE them ministers. I know from your past posts that you can parse scriptures quite well, so I know that you don’t even believe yourself on this one! Wow indeed !

Ddub said - Look, the bottom line is that you have NO SCRIPTURE... NONE, ZERO, ZILCH, NADA, NIL, NOTHING- that says you're under the NC.

Looks to me that 2 Corinthians 3:6 is all I need for now. That you choose to ignore the context of the passages I presented from the book of Hebrews, showing what Jesus IS (as opposed to what you say Jesus will be), does not change the fact that Christ ministers in heaven through the changes made possible under a new covenant. This is a problem for you – not me.

For all of your last remarks about the truth, let’s see if we can get a truthful answer from you on the question above. Truth does hurt, huh?

 

[ddub85]

@ Apollos

"...by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant."

Does this say He is mediator, or does it say He's under the better covenant?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ddub –
The passage under consideration is:
2 Cor 3:6 - "...[God] also made us sufficient as ministers of a new covenant; not of the letter, but of the spirit..." ASV
Ddub replied - Paul is telling us to correctly divide the word of God, and be ministers of that word. Paul is in no way saying that we are under the NC.

I hate to say it but your theology is making you look foolish. Anyone that can see through a ladder knows what Paul is saying. Paul was telling the Corinthains that they, as well as he, had been MADE (past tense) ministers of the NEW covenant.

I agree with your statement. Paul says we were made MINISTERS. He did not say we were under the NC. You, however, unlike Paul, are saying we are under the NC. Yet, not this verse, nor any other verse, says any such thing! That, in my opinion, is foolish.

There is one BIG questions that remain for you in this verse. You may be able to salvage some plausibility IF you can give any type of credible response…
WHY does Paul use the word COVENANT (“DIATHEKE”) in this verse – 1 Corinthians 3:6 ??? WHY didn’t Paul use the word for WORD (“LOGOS”) if in fact Paul was telling us to “correctly divide the word” as you attempt to claim???

??? I don't even see why this question is even relevant. I'll tell you what, I'll rephrase; Paul was telling us to understand that we are to minister the truth about the NC to others, and he never stated that we were under it. Does that help?
- - - - - - - - - -
Ddub said - Paul tells you to "minister" and you ain't buyin' it? Instead, you've decided that Paul has told you that you're under the NC, when he actually tells you to "minister". Wow. I guess that's between you and God.

C’mon Ddub, Paul says no such thing. Paul does NOT tell anyone in this verse “to minister”, but rather that they God had MADE them ministers.

??? When you're made a MINISTER, what is it that you should do??? NOT minister??? (Did you actually state earlier that my theology was making me look foolish???!!!!???).

I know from your past posts that you can parse scriptures quite well, so I know that you don’t even believe yourself on this one! Wow indeed !

What I don't believe is you deciding that ministers don't minister, but instead are "under" the thing they're supposed to minister. That's what I can't believe.

Ddub said - Look, the bottom line is that you have NO SCRIPTURE... NONE, ZERO, ZILCH, NADA, NIL, NOTHING- that says you're under the NC.

Looks to me that 2 Corinthians 3:6 is all I need for now.

Then you don't need any scripture that says you're under the NC to believe it's true. You have decided that whay you believe supercedes the word of God. You have joined many others who take their own beliefs above twhat God says.

That you choose to ignore the context of the passages I presented from the book of Hebrews, showing what Jesus IS (as opposed to what you say Jesus will be), does not change the fact that Christ ministers in heaven through the changes made possible under a new covenant. This is a problem for you – not me.

Again,... and over and over again,... THERE ARE NO SCRIPTURES which say that Christ ministers in heaven through the NC, nor are there any scriptures which say anyone is under the NC.
HOWEVER, there are scriptures that say we're under the OC. But "this is a problem for you - not me."

For all of your last remarks about the truth, let’s see if we can get a truthful answer from you on the question above.

Done.

Truth does hurt, huh?

You'll have to let me know.

God Bless!

 

[Apollos1]

Ddub –
You are back – great! I just realized that you finally replied. It isn’t much of a reply – but it is a reply.

Ddub said - Does [Hb. 8:6] say He is mediator, or does it say He's under the better covenant?

Heb 8:6 - But now hath he obtained a ministry the more excellent, by so much as he is also the mediator of a better covenant, which hath been enacted upon better promises.

This says TWO things:

-That Jesus IS the mediator of a NEW covenant. (You can not mediate that which does not exist.
-That the NEW covenant “has been ENACTED”. (This means put into effect !)

Why do you struggle so with that man-made theology that denies the NEW covenant of Jesus Christ ??!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again - the passage most under consideration is:

2 Cor 3:6 - "...[God] also made us sufficient as ministers of a new covenant; not of the letter, but of the spirit..." ASV


Ddub replies - I agree with your statement. Paul says we were made MINISTERS. He did not say we were under the NC.

Well Ddub, it took you almost a month, but you are creeping slowly toward the obvious truth here.

Yes, 2 Cor. 3:6 does in fact say (and you have finally agreed) that Paul and others had been MADE ministers of a NEW covenant. But to protect your theology you quickly want to say that “He did not say we were under the NC.”

LOL ! C’mon – the inference plainly indicates that they WERE ALREADY ministers of the NEW covenant. How can one be MADE (or "enabled") as a minister of something that is not in effect???

Answer this question and you may gain some plausibility here. Otherwise, we will all continue to marvel at the disingenuous nature of your replies just to protect your man-made theology.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Apollos asked - WHY does Paul use the word COVENANT (“DIATHEKE”) in this verse – 1 Corinthians 3:6 ??? WHY didn’t Paul use the word for WORD (“LOGOS”) if in fact Paul was telling us to “correctly divide the word” as you attempt to claim???

Ddub replied - I don't even see why this question is even relevant.

It is relevant because you first said that Paul was “telling us to correctly divide the WORD…” when the passage very obviously was talking about a COVENANT.
This is a BIG difference – one that has you struggling to find a credible reply.
I have every confidence that you “see” why this is relevant !

Ddub said - I'll tell you what, I'll rephrase…

“Rephrase”? At this point I bet you would beg for the chance.

Ddub’s rephrase- Paul was telling us to understand that we are to minister the truth about the NC to others, and he never stated that we were under it. Does that help?

Let’s compare this statement with what you first said that it said…

Ddub first said about 2Cor 3:6 - “Paul is telling us to correctly divide the word of God, and be ministers of that word. Paul is in no way saying that we are under the NC.”


Comparing your two remarks… “correctly divide the word…” -versus- “minister the truth about the NC to others…”. Hmmm…………

No… nope – your current “rephrase” doesn’t help. In fact, it really isn’t a “rephrase” at all - it is a totally different thought altogether. The first talks about the WORD of God and your second thought talks about the new COVENANT !!!

Which one do you really believe – or are you just hoping the point of all of this will be lost in the “shuffle” ??? As I said, your theology is making you look foolish.
Who knows what your theology will make you say next time!
- - - - - - - - - -


Ddub said - Paul tells you to "minister" and you ain't buyin' it?

LOL ! This is “smoke” ! Two points…

1. The passage is not telling us to minister – but rather that Paul and others had been MADE sufficient ministers. Your desperation makes you want to change this.

2. Paul then states that he had been “made” a “sufficient” (qualified, enabled) minister of the NEW covenant – not that we are to minister “about” the NC to others.
Paul was already ministering – he had been “enabled” to do so by God!

You would have us believe that Paul was qualified and ministering under something that did not exist. You are struggling about this Ddub – and it ain’t “pretty”!!

Ddub said - Wow. I guess that's between you and God.

This is your paraphrase for “I can’t answer your points, but I must say something.”
- - - - -

Ddub said - When you're made a MINISTER, what is it that you should do??? NOT minister???

More smoke… Let’s look at the passage again –

2 Cor 3:6 - "...[God] also made us sufficient as ministers of a new covenant; not of the letter, but of the spirit..." ASV

What does the verse say:

A.) God made Paul and others sufficient as ministers of a new covenant.
B.) That we are to minister
C.) That we are to minister about a covenant we have not been MADE ministers of

(Pssst !! Pssst !!! The answer is……………..”A” !!!)

Oh that painful truth… God has enabled us as ministers of a NEW covenant.

 

[ddub85]

@ Apollos

You are back – great! I just realized that you finally replied. It isn’t much of a reply – but it is a reply.

It's good to be back. My reply as usual is one you can't answer with any substance. I do admire your attempts though.

Ddub said - Does [Hb. 8:6] say He is mediator, or does it say He's under the better covenant?

Heb 8:6 - But now hath he obtained a ministry the more excellent, by so much as he is also the mediator of a better covenant, which hath been enacted upon better promises.

This says TWO things:

-That Jesus IS the mediator of a NEW covenant.

True.

(You can not mediate that which does not exist.

No one said you could, nor did anyone say the NC doesn't exist. Let's stick with what's said, and not create new things that aren't stated.

-That the NEW covenant “has been ENACTED”. (This means put into effect !)

Enact- 1: to establish by legal and authoritative act ; specifically : to make (as a bill) into law (Webster's)

To ESTABLISH, which says absolutely nothing about putting into effect. What you're saying isn't the truth, it's only what you choose to believe regrdless of what the Bible actually says. You're choosing to believe a lie. You make this fictitious statement w/o any scripture to support it (I do understand that there is NO SCRIPTURE which supports it), and you don't tell the truth about what the Bible says. Instead, you make something up that can't be supported by the Bible.

Why do you struggle so with that man-made theology that denies the NEW covenant of Jesus Christ ??!!

Man-made theology? The scripture you list supports what I said. It doesn't support your man-made garble that the NC is in effect. That is a man-made lie. You're just having a very hard time accepting the truth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again - the passage most under consideration is:

2 Cor 3:6 - "...[God] also made us sufficient as ministers of a new covenant; not of the letter, but of the spirit..." ASV

This is your best opportunity, and it still doesn't say we're under the NC. It still doesn't support what you say.


Ddub replies - I agree with your statement. Paul says we were made MINISTERS. He did not say we were under the NC.

Well Ddub, it took you almost a month, but you are creeping slowly toward the obvious truth here.

Yes, 2 Cor. 3:6 does in fact say (and you have finally agreed) that Paul and others had been MADE ministers of a NEW covenant. But to protect your theology you quickly want to say that “He did not say we were under the NC.”

LOL ! C’mon – the inference plainly indicates that they WERE ALREADY ministers of the NEW covenant. How can one be MADE (or "enabled") as a minister of something that is not in effect???

How familiar are you with the Bible?(LOL). Jonah, for one example, was a MINISTER to the people of Nineveh re: their fate if they didn't adhere to the word of the Lord. This is proof that you can indeed be a minister of something, and NOT be under that something. This alone disproves your point, and proves you wrong.

Answer this question and you may gain some plausibility here. Otherwise, we will all continue to marvel at the disingenuous nature of your replies just to protect your man-made theology.

Your question has been thoroughly and duly answered WITH SCRIPTURE, and you have been PROVEN to be incorrect. You're wrong. So now you can gain some plausibility by either admitting that fact, or stating something FACTUAL WITH SCRIPTURE to prove your point. It's quite clear to anyone who can read that you in fact have the man-made theology.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Apollos asked - WHY does Paul use the word COVENANT (“DIATHEKE”) in this verse – 1 Corinthians 3:6 ??? WHY didn’t Paul use the word for WORD (“LOGOS”) if in fact Paul was telling us to “correctly divide the word” as you attempt to claim???

Ddub replied - I don't even see why this question is even relevant.

It is relevant because you first said that Paul was “telling us to correctly divide the WORD…” when the passage very obviously was talking about a COVENANT.
This is a BIG difference – one that has you struggling to find a credible reply.
I have every confidence that you “see” why this is relevant !

What's relevant is that Paul said we are ministers of that covenant, and he didn't say we were under that covenant. That's what's relevant. Let's see if you can correctly divide that word!


Ddub said - I'll tell you what, I'll rephrase…

“Rephrase”? At this point I bet you would beg for the chance.

Ddub’s rephrase- Paul was telling us to understand that we are to minister the truth about the NC to others, and he never stated that we were under it. Does that help?

Let’s compare this statement with what you first said that it said…

Ddub first said about 2Cor 3:6 - “Paul is telling us to correctly divide the word of God, and be ministers of that word. Paul is in no way saying that we are under the NC.”


Comparing your two remarks… “correctly divide the word…” -versus- “minister the truth about the NC to others…”. Hmmm…………

No… nope – your current “rephrase” doesn’t help. In fact, it really isn’t a “rephrase” at all - it is a totally different thought altogether. The first talks about the WORD of God and your second thought talks about the new COVENANT !!!

What are you even talking about???!!! One says "we are to minister the truth", and the other says we are to "be ministers of that word". So again, I don't even know what you're arguing about! Stop nlooking for some kind of red herring to hang on to in order to hide your faulty theology.

Which one do you really believe – or are you just hoping the point of all of this will be lost in the “shuffle” ??? As I said, your theology is making you look foolish.
Who knows what your theology will make you say next time!

My theology this time, just like last time, and just like everytime, is the same as the Bible, because it is the Bible. I believe BOTH statements, because both are true, and they don't contradict each other. What you believe, however, is not biblical, and can't be supported with the Bible.
- - - - - - - - - -


Ddub said - Paul tells you to "minister" and you ain't buyin' it?

LOL ! This is “smoke” ! Two points…

1. The passage is not telling us to minister – but rather that Paul and others had been MADE sufficient ministers. Your desperation makes you want to change this.

Huh??? Are you even serious? God made us sufficient ministers in order to ______________. I'll allow you to fill in the blank! (???)

2. Paul then states that he had been “made” a “sufficient” (qualified, enabled) minister of the NEW covenant – not that we are to minister “about” the NC to others.
Paul was already ministering – he had been “enabled” to do so by God!

You would have us believe that Paul was qualified and ministering under something that did not exist. You are struggling about this Ddub – and it ain’t “pretty”!!

See, the problem here is that you want to believe your untruth so badly that you start making things up, even about what I believe. I never said that the NC doesn't exist. I said we aren't under it. Can youn not see the difference? Instead of saying things for me, you can just simply repeat what I said. That may help you stay on track.

Ddub said - Wow. I guess that's between you and God.

This is your paraphrase for “I can’t answer your points, but I must say something.”

No, that means I guess that's between you and God. Again, just repaeat what I said rather than trying to interpret. It's not one of your strong points.
- - - - -

Ddub said - When you're made a MINISTER, what is it that you should do??? NOT minister???

**

More smoke… Let’s look at the passage again –

2 Cor 3:6 - "...[God] also made us sufficient as ministers of a new covenant; not of the letter, but of the spirit..." ASV

What does the verse say:

A.) God made Paul and others sufficient as ministers of a new covenant.
B.) That we are to minister
C.) That we are to minister about a covenant we have not been MADE ministers of

(Pssst !! Pssst !!! The answer is……………..”A” !!!)

Oh that painful truth… God has enabled us as ministers of a NEW covenant.

??? Why would this be painful? Are you looking for disagreement? What are you trying to prove? (Are you OK?)

God Bless!

 

[Apollos1]

Hey Ddub –

I hope you are having a great Winter. And yes, I am okay ! Are you?

Dudb - It's good to be back. My reply as usual is one you can't answer with any substance. I do admire your attempts though.

Well, that was presumptive. When I start having to “rephrase” important points as you have to do, I will keep this in mind.
- - -
Ddub - No one said you could[mediate that which does not exist] nor did anyone say the NC doesn't exist. Let's stick with what's said, and not create new things that aren't stated.

More importantly, why don’t we APPLY what we are reading. Hebrews 8:6 says Jesus mediates the NEW covenant which has been enacted upon better promises – inference here that the promises were better than the OLD was enacted upon.
- - -

Ddub - -That the NEW covenant “has been ENACTED”. (This means put into effect!).
Enact- 1: to establish by legal and authoritative act ; specifically : to make (as a bill) into law (Webster's)

(Why did you use an English dictionary? Try using Thayer or Strong next time. But your English definition does not help you.)

In spite of the diatribe that followed this remark in your last post, anyone who knows that there is a hole in a doughnut can read Hebrews 8:6 and comprehend that Jesus IS the mediator of the NEW covenant, AND that it says the NEW covenant was enacted/established upon better promises. You need to get rid of the prejudice you retain, built up through years of receiving bad teaching.

How silly of you to want to claim that Jesus mediates a covenant that is not in effect. How disassociated to say the covenant is “established” or “enacted” on better promises [than the old was] – and then say “It is not in effect”. If you would embrace the simple truth you would not have to appear so desperate in your theological position!
- - - - - - - - - -

The passage under consideration is:

2 Corinthians 3:6 -"...[God] also made us sufficient as ministers of a new covenant; not of the letter, but of the spirit..."ASV

Ddub - This is your best opportunity, and it still doesn't say we're under the NC. It still doesn't support what you say.
- I agree with your statement. Paul says we were made MINISTERS. He did not say we were under the NC.

You are in denial! You say…
-Jesus is the mediator of a covenant that we are not under?
-Paul is the minister of a covenant that we are not under?
-The covenant was enacted upon better promises [than the old]?
YET – YET –YET we are not under that NEW covenant??? LOL !
- - - - - - - - - -

Ddub - How familiar are you with the Bible?(LOL).

At least one more verse familiar than you – see 2 Cor. 3:6. And I know what it says!
- - -
Ddub - Jonah, for one example, was a MINISTER to the people of Nineveh re: their fate if they didn't adhere to the word of the Lord. This is proof that you can indeed be a minister of something, and NOT be under that something. This alone disproves your point, and proves you wrong.

Your point (is there one?) about Jonah is not evident.
- Are you saying that Jonah was not accountable to the word of God that he taught?
-Are you saying that Jonah was not a MINISTER of God’s word?
-Or are you saying that Jonah would not share the same FATE if he did not adhere to the word of the Lord?

METHINKS you struggled mightily once again to not make a point!
You have no point here!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Apollos asked - WHY does Paul use the word COVENANT (“DIATHEKE&#8221 in this verse – 2 Corinthians 3:6 ??? WHY didn’t Paul use the word for WORD (“LOGOS&#8221 if in fact Paul was telling us to “correctly divide the word” as you attempt to claim???

Ddub replied - I don't even see why this question is even relevant.


Apollos said - It is relevant because you first said that Paul was “telling us to correctly divide the WORD…” when the passage very obviously was talking about a COVENANT.

Ddub - What's relevant is that Paul said we are ministers of that covenant, and he didn't say we were under that covenant. That's what's relevant. Let's see if you can correctly divide that word!

Why are you attempting to convince yourself that Paul and others were ministers of a covenant, but no one is accountable to it? Why would Paul bother with such? What ramblings you have created for yourself!

And of course it is relevant to note Paul is talking about being a minister of the NEW COVENANT in 2 Corinthians 3:6.
- - - - - - - - - -


Apollos said… your current “rephrase” doesn’t help. In fact, it really isn’t a “rephrase” at all - it is a totally different thought altogether. [Your] first [comment][says 2Cor 3:6 speaks] about the WORD of God and your second [comment says 2Cor 3:6 speaks] about the new COVENANT !!!

Ddub - What are you even talking about???!!!

I have clarified this for you above in the brackets. I am talking about how you changed what you said in reference to 2 Cor. 3:6. I challenged you what you said, and then challenged what you said again by using the words from the text – namely “word” (logos) versus “covenant” (diatheke).

When I challenged you on the words that were actually used in the text, you realized that what you first said had been exposed for the error that it was. So you wanted to “rephrase”. But what you gave me wasn’t a “rephrase”, it was totally changed. So your theology has you talking out of both sides of your mouth.
- - -

Ddub - One says "we are to minister the truth", and the other says we are to "be ministers of that word". So again, I don't even know what you're arguing about! Stop nlooking for some kind of red herring to hang on to in order to hide your faulty theology.

The problem here is that you are attempting to hide from the truth of the passage - 2 Corinthians 3:6. This passage does not say that anyone is to “minister the truth”. This passage does not say that anyone is to be “ministers of the word”. I have already “kicked you in the pants” on this. Why are you coming back for more?

"...[God] also made us sufficient as ministers of a new covenant; not of the letter, but of the spirit..."

Why do you read all of your “blah-blah” INTO the passage? Ans: In a vain attempt to protect your errant theology.
- - -

Ddub - My theology this time, just like last time, and just like everytime, is the same as the Bible, because it is the Bible.

Looking at what I have pointed out directly above, I have to say you have issues.
- - -

Dudb - I believe BOTH statements, because both are true, and they don't contradict each other.

Then let’s repeat both statements:

1.) … “correctly divide the word…”
2.) … “minister the truth about the NC to others…”.

From what you say here one can only conclude that the word and the New covenant are the same. Because Paul instructed Timothy to “correctly divide the word” in 2 Tim 2:15 and preach the word (2Tim 4:2), Paul therefore instructed Timothy to preach the NEW covenant. Correct?
- - - - - - - - - -

Ddub - See, the problem here is that you want to believe your untruth so badly that you start making things up, even about what I believe.

Just answer the question, I don’t need any more “smoke”. That question was - Would have us believe that Paul was qualified [enabled] and ministering under something that did not exist.???
- - -

Ddub - I never said that the NC doesn't exist. I said we aren't under it. Can youn not see the difference?

I can see your difference – but I don’t know why I should have to.
Where/how does the NEW covenant exist? Why was Paul a minister of the NEW covenant? WHY is Christ mediating that new covenant? Please explain!!!

I will close again with the multiple choice question that somehow you did not answer last time. Should I expect an answer this time?

- - - - - - - - - -
2 Cor 3:6 - "...[God] also made us sufficient as ministers of a new covenant; not of the letter, but of the spirit..." ASV

What does the verse above say:

A.) God made Paul and others sufficient as ministers of a new covenant.
B.) That we are to minister
C.) That we are to minister about a covenant we have not been MADE ministers of
D.) That we are to 'correctly divide the word'
- - - - - - - - - -

What is your answer Ddub ?

Although your theology is making you look foolish, it does not have to be that way…

 

[ddub85]

@ Apollos

Hey Ddub –

I hope you are having a great Winter. And yes, I am okay ! Are you?

Doing well. I wish you happy holidays.

Dudb - It's good to be back. My reply as usual is one you can't answer with any substance. I do admire your attempts though.

Well, that was presumptive. When I start having to “rephrase” important points as you have to do, I will keep this in mind.

When you consider "establish" to mean "activate" you are rephrasing. Keep that in mind.
- - -
Ddub - No one said you could[mediate that which does not exist] nor did anyone say the NC doesn't exist. Let's stick with what's said, and not create new things that aren't stated.

More importantly, why don’t we APPLY what we are reading. Hebrews 8:6 says Jesus mediates the NEW covenant which has been enacted upon better promises – inference here that the promises were better than the OLD was enacted upon.

That's part of the problem. You're basing your belief upon "inference". Rather than "infer", why don't we just APPLY what is said (or not said, in this case) as you suggest. For instance, the Bible NEVER says we're under the NC, it NEVER uses it in the present or past tense, and in Hbr 8 the same exact verse used in Jeremiah is repeated in it's exact YET TO COME form. That is application without inference. Let's see if you can do that.
- - -
Ddub - -That the NEW covenant “has been ENACTED”. (This means put into effect!).
Enact- 1: to establish by legal and authoritative act ; specifically : to make (as a bill) into law (Webster's)

(Why did you use an English dictionary? Try using Thayer or Strong next time. But your English definition does not help you.)

No sweat.

Nomotheteo- Strong's G3549

1) to enact laws

a) laws are enacted or prescribed for one, to be legislated for, furnished with laws

2) to sanction by law, enact

Just as I've been telling you, this tells us that the NC has been "sanctioned", "established", NOT activated. However, you prefer to ignore the difference, and pretend the word of God says something that it does not.

In spite of the diatribe that followed this remark in your last post, anyone who knows that there is a hole in a doughnut can read Hebrews 8:6 and comprehend that Jesus IS the mediator of the NEW covenant,AND that it says the NEW covenant was enacted/established upon better promises.

There is no argument regarding that point. You're stating the obvious! The problem here for you is that you're in denial about what "enacted/established" means, and you're attempting to make it mean activated. It does not, and therefore disqualifies your theology.

You need to get rid of the prejudice you retain, built up through years of receiving bad teaching.

You are the prejudiced one, denying what is actually stated, and denying the meaning of the words being used. Whoever told you that established = active is the bad teacher, and unfortunately you're the unlucky recipient.

How silly of you to want to claim that Jesus mediates a covenant that is not in effect.

THE BIBLE says Jesus mediates the NC, and it NEVER states it's in effect. That's what the BIBLE says, not me. You should keep your simple logic out of it, and allow the Bible to speak. When you say "how silly", then follow it with what the Bible, guess who you're calling silly?

How disassociated to say the covenant is “established” or “enacted” on better promises [than the old was] – and then say “It is not in effect”.

How uninformed of you to not understand that something can be established without being active. But I think you do understand that, but just can't accept that your theology is incorrect.

If you would embrace the simple truth you would not have to appear so desperate in your theological position!

The desperate one is the one who can't accept what the Bible says, so they "infer" their own words and theology to create something not said, such as we're under the NC. That would be you.
- - - - - - - - - -

The passage under consideration is:

2 Corinthians 3:6 -"...[God] also made us sufficient as ministers of a new covenant; not of the letter, but of the spirit..."ASV

Ddub - This is your best opportunity, and it still doesn't say we're under the NC. It still doesn't support what you say.
- I agree with your statement. Paul says we were made MINISTERS. He did not say we were under the NC.

You are in denial! You say…
-Jesus is the mediator of a covenant that we are not under?
-Paul is the minister of a covenant that we are not under?
-The covenant was enacted upon better promises [than the old]?
YET – YET –YET we are not under that NEW covenant??? LOL !

The only thing you need to do is present scripture which states we're under the NC. I mean, on a subject of that importance, of that magnitude, God would not leave us to "infer", He would plainly tell us, as He does with everything else. YET-YET-YET-YET, the Bible NEVER says we're under the NC. It NEVER, EVER, NEVER, EVER, NEVER says we're under the NC. YET-YET-YET-YET, you do!!! Don't you find that peculiar? Isn't that just a little strange?

I'll tell you what, find a scripture which says plainly that we're under the NC. Not one that says we're "ministers of", or that doesn't include Gentiles, or that speaks of anyone under this covenant in the present tense,... SOMETHING that is actually tangible. You can't do it, and that's why you haven't done it. You can't do it because that verse does not exist in the Bible!!!!! It's time to accept the truth.
- - - - - - - - - -
Ddub - How familiar are you with the Bible?(LOL).

At least one more verse familiar than you – see 2 Cor. 3:6. And I know what it says!

I know what it says also. It says we're to be ministers of the NC, and it NEVER says we're under the NC. Truth.
- - -
Ddub - Jonah, for one example, was a MINISTER to the people of Nineveh re: their fate if they didn't adhere to the word of the Lord. This is proof that you can indeed be a minister of something, and NOT be under that something. This alone disproves your point, and proves you wrong.

Your point (is there one?) about Jonah is not evident.

Only Helen Keller or Stevie Wonder could miss it. LOL

- Are you saying that Jonah was not accountable to the word of God that he taught?

Jonah was not from Nineveh, he was sent there to "minister". Therefore, he would not be held accountable to the fate that was "ministered" to Nineveh by him. Is that evident to you?

-Are you saying that Jonah was not a MINISTER of God’s word?

??? No, I'm saying that Jonah WAS a minister of God's word, and he ministered to Nineveh THEIR fate, which he was not a part of. He was MINISTER, and NOT recipient. Surely the difference is evident to you.

-Or are you saying that Jonah would not share the same FATE if he did not adhere to the word of the Lord?

Haha! Since Jonah was not from Nineveh, since he was just sent to MINISTER, he would not share in their fate. Why, do you somehow see it differently? Please explain, instead of just ignoring the point. Please explain. Make it evident.

METHINKS you struggled mightily once again to not make a point! You have no point here!

On the contrary, it was a very simple and easy point to make. Jonah "ministered" to Nineveh regarding their fate if they didn't adhere to God's word. Jonah wasn't included in Nineveh's fate because he wan't a part of Nineveh. Simple, easy, and totally deflating to your position that being a minister of something means you're a part of that something.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Apollos asked - WHY does Paul use the word COVENANT (“DIATHEKE”) in this verse – 2 Corinthians 3:6 ??? WHY didn’t Paul use the word for WORD (“LOGOS”) if in fact Paul was telling us to “correctly divide the word” as you attempt to claim???

Ddub replied - I don't even see why this question is even relevant."

Apollos said - It is relevant because you first said that Paul was “telling us to correctly divide the WORD…” when the passage very obviously was talking about a COVENANT.

Ddub - What's relevant is that Paul said we are ministers of that covenant, and he didn't say we were under that covenant. That's what's relevant. Let's see if you can correctly divide that word!

Why are you attempting to convince yourself that Paul and others were ministers of a covenant, but no one is accountable to it? Why would Paul bother with such? What ramblings you have created for yourself!

"No one is accountable to it"??? And you falsely attribute that to me? C'mon Apollos, you're better than that! Those who are accountable to it will be those who are under it when it is activated. Those who are accountable to it are those who it is promised to; Hbr 8:8 "I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:". Now,... does that include you? Are you of the house of Israel or the house of Judah? I think not, but you tell me. There's no "INFERENCE" needed here by you, as God is very clear about who the covenant is for. Of course, you will summarily ignore this point and move on to something else.

And of course it is relevant to note Paul is talking about being a minister of the NEW COVENANT in 2 Corinthians 3:6.

Yes, and notice that he NEVER says that he's under the NC. NEVER does he say that.
- - - - - - - - - -
Apollos said… your current “rephrase” doesn’t help. In fact, it really isn’t a “rephrase” at all - it is a totally different thought altogether. [Your] first [comment][says 2Cor 3:6 speaks] about the WORD of God and your second [comment says 2Cor 3:6 speaks] about the new COVENANT !!!

Ddub - What are you even talking about???!!!

I have clarified this for you above in the brackets. I am talking about how you changed what you said in reference to 2 Cor. 3:6. I challenged you what you said, and then challenged what you said again by using the words from the text – namely “word” (logos) versus “covenant” (diatheke).

When I challenged you on the words that were actually used in the text, you realized that what you first said had been exposed for the error that it was. So you wanted to “rephrase”. But what you gave me wasn’t a “rephrase”, it was totally changed. So your theology has you talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Allow me to enlighten you here just a bit. What I say doesn't matter at all. What you say doesn't matter either. What the Bible says is all that matters. So if I said something that is incorrect, it's pretty much irrelevant.

However, in this case, I don't even know what you're going on and on about. Word? Covenant? I can't make sense of what you're trying to say. I haven't changed a thing. Not my belief, not what I'm trying to convey to you... I simply can't follow your train of thought on this subject.
- - -
Ddub - One says "we are to minister the truth", and the other says we are to "be ministers of that word". So again, I don't even know what you're arguing about! Stop nlooking for some kind of red herring to hang on to in order to hide your faulty theology.

The problem here is that you are attempting to hide from the truth of the passage - 2 Corinthians 3:6. This passage does not say that anyone is to “minister the truth”. This passage does not say that anyone is to be “ministers of the word”. I have already “kicked you in the pants” on this. Why are you coming back for more?

Haha! If you've kicked me in the pants on this, then congratulations. I hope it has helped your mental state. (???) However, that's what a minister does. He ministers the word of God, just as Jonah did.

"...[God] also made us sufficient as ministers of a new covenant; not of the letter, but of the spirit..."

Why do you read all of your “blah-blah” INTO the passage? Ans: In a vain attempt to protect your errant theology.

The passage says we are sufficient ministers of a new covenant, NOT that we are under a new covenant. YOU, on thte other hand, are attempting to say it says that we're under a new covenant. That simply isn't true. Jonah was ministering to Nineveh their fate, NOT under the fate of Nineveh. I'm sure you see the difference.
- - -
Ddub - My theology this time, just like last time, and just like everytime, is the same as the Bible, because it is the Bible.

Looking at what I have pointed out directly above, I have to say you have issues.

The only issue is your unwillingness to admit that a minister doesn't have to be a part of what he ministers.
- - -
Dudb - I believe BOTH statements, because both are true, and they don't contradict each other.

Then let’s repeat both statements:

1.) … “correctly divide the word…”
2.) … “minister the truth about the NC to others…”.

From what you say here one can only conclude that the word and the New covenant are the same. Because Paul instructed Timothy to “correctly divide the word” in 2 Tim 2:15 and preach the word (2Tim 4:2), Paul therefore instructed Timothy to preach the NEW covenant. Correct?

Wow, you're really spinning yourself in serious circles here. Let me just say that the NC is the word of God, but I have no knowledge of Paul instructing Timothy to preach it. But I digress...
- - - - - - - - - -
Ddub - See, the problem here is that you want to believe your untruth so badly that you start making things up, even about what I believe.

Just answer the question, I don’t need any more “smoke”. That question was - Would have us believe that Paul was qualified [enabled] and ministering under something that did not exist.???

The NC exists, it has been established. It is not in effect as of yet. There are NO SCRIPTURES which say it's in effect, which doesn't make sense if it actually is. The Bible, not even when speaking on the subject, ever says we're under the NC. The Bible also never says the NC is for Gentiles. NOWHERE in the Bible.

Paul was ministering under the same covenant as Isaac was under which is the covenant promised to Isaac's father, who is Abraham according to the Bible;
"Gal 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise."

Here we have a verse in which Paul claims to be under the same covenant as Isaac, which is obviously the Abrahamic Covenant, and NO VERSES, NONE, NOT ONE! that states we're under the New Covenant, yet you believe we're under the New Covenant. Go figure.

To be continued...
- - -

 

[ddub85]

@ Apollos

Ddub - I never said that the NC doesn't exist. I said we aren't under it. Can you not see the difference?
I

can see your difference – but I don’t know why I should have to.Where/how does the NEW covenant exist? Why was Paul a minister of the NEW covenant? WHY is Christ mediating that new covenant? Please explain!!!

Well, where/how does the second coming of Christ exist? Why would Paul be a minister of that? The New Covenant is the promise made to the Jews, a fulfillment of what God promised to do. God will fulfill His promise to them, as He always does.

Christ is the mediator of this covenant because these are His people, and this is His promise. Gentiles are included in the promise of salvation, just as Paul pointed out in Gal. 3. That's why the Bible, when speaking of Gentiles, doesn't include us in the promises, but always very carefully speaks of us in the context of the promise (singular).

I will close again with the multiple choice question that somehow you did not answer last time. Should I expect an answer this time?

- - - - - - - - - -

2 Cor 3:6 - "...[God] also made us sufficient as ministers of a new covenant; not of the letter, but of the spirit..." ASV

What does the verse above say:

A.) God made Paul and others sufficient as ministers of a new covenant.

True.

B.) That we are to minister

True, if we are made ministers, we are to minister.

C.) That we are to minister about a covenant we have not been MADE ministers of

??? You're not making sense.

D.) That we are to 'correctly divide the word'

Good advise, biblical, but not a direct part of the above verse.
- - - - - - - - - -

What is your answer Ddub ?

Although your theology is making you look foolish, it does not have to be that way…

Notice that through all of our conversation, you haven't listed one verse that says we're under the New Covenant. Honestly, if we were under the New Covenant, wouldn't God clearly say so? There are NO VERSES which say so!!! Yet, you believe that we are, and you minister that untruth to others. Now if that doesn't make your theology look foolish, then the word foolish probably doesn't exist. The truth is there for you. Just accept it.

God Bless!

 

[Apollos1]

Ddub –

I find it interesting when I repeat the things YOU say that you often say it doesn’t make sense, or is not part of the scripture in questions. Example:

I asked about 2 Corinthians 3:6 -"...[God] also made us sufficient as ministers of a new covenant; not of the letter, but of the spirit..."ASV

One of my answers listed in a multiple choice question in my last post in reference to this verse was…

D.) That we are to 'correctly divide the word' ? The ‘quoted” part is something you said this verse was saying in an earlier post. Your last post response was…

“Good advise, biblical, but not a direct part of the above verse.”

First you tell me 2 Cor 3:6 is saying the above, and then you say it is not a “direct part” of the verse. LOL !! You really talk out of both sides of your mouth. For brevity this post I will remove a lot of the “double speak” you have offered – which amounts to quite a bit.
- - -

Ddub - For instance, the Bible NEVER says we're under the NC, it NEVER uses it in the present or past tense…

It actually does. Paul and others were “enabled” ministers of the NC and Christ was the mediator of the NC, which was “enacted” upon better promises.

Ddub - and in Hbr 8 the same exact verse used in Jeremiah is repeated in it's exact YET TO COME form. That is application without inference.

Wrong! Certainly you can read better than this! Jeremiah’s quotation does not begin until Hb 8:8. Hebrews 8:6 gives us present information about the NC based upon what Christ did – not Jeremiah. You being disingenuous again or you just don’t know your numbers.

Please also note that the whole reason the Hebrew writer quotes Jeremiah was to show that the NEW covenant had come, just as Jeremiah prophesied. You don’t listen to so many trying to help you.
- - - - - - - - - -

Ddub - I mean, on a subject of that importance, of that magnitude, God would not leave us to "infer"…

Many things are taught by inference. Just because you need to be “spoon-fed” doesn’t mean inference is a bad way to instruct.

Ddub - I'll tell you what, find a scripture which says plainly that we're under the NC.

You wouldn’t accept it anymore than the plain truth above about 2 Cor. 3:6 or Hebrews 8:6. You would find your quibbles.


- - - - - - - - - -

Ddub - No, I'm saying that Jonah WAS a minister of God's word, and he ministered to Nineveh THEIR fate, which he was not a part of. He was MINISTER, and NOT recipient. Surely the difference is evident to you.

LOL !!! Helen Keller must be your girlfriend !

Jonah was accountable to and ministered the same word of God that he ministered to Nineveh. God’s word was the same and the fate for disobedience was the same.

Jonah would have shared the SAME FATE as Nineveh for disobedience to God’s word ! Jonah “ministered” the same thing that both Nineveh and Jonah were accountable to. The only difference was the geographical location. You made no point! You attempted to make a distinction where there was no difference – just as you attempt to do with the NC.

Paul was a “minister” of the NEW covenant. He served that under which he would be held accountable to.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Ddub - What's relevant is that Paul said we are ministers of that covenant, and he didn't say we were under that covenant. That's what's relevant. Let's see if you can correctly divide that word!

You are saying Christians are servants of a covenant to which we are not accountable to? If the NC is not in effect – we are not accountable to it are we?
LOL !

Ddub - Hbr 8:8 "I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:". Now,... does that include you? Are you of the house of Israel or the house of Judah?

WHY do you read “ONLY” into this verse. Jeremiah was speaking to the Jews. Jeremiah never said that the NEW covenant would be established ONLY with the Jews ! The NEW covenant is for ALL nations !!! Please correctly “divide” the word !

And then there is the matter of Christians of being “spiritual Israel” – a topic too deep for your understanding. Or dare we involve scriptures relating how “by faith” Gentiles become the “seed” of Abraham?

- - - - - - - - - -

Ddub - However, in this case, I don't even know what you're going on and on about. Word? Covenant? I can't make sense of what you're trying to say.

When people get caught with their “pants down”, your reaction of “I don’t understand…” is usually the case. We can move on as I am certain anyone else that may be reading this thread knows you changed what you originally said in reference to what 2 Cor. 3:6.
- - -


Ddub - Wow, you're really spinning yourself in serious circles here. Let me just say that the NC is the word of God, but I have no knowledge of Paul instructing Timothy to preach it.

Let me just say that because the NEW covenant is the WORD of God, and because all Christians are to preach the WORD of God, then we are to preach the NEW covenant. If not, why not?
- - - - - - - - - -

Ddub - The Bible also never says the NC is for Gentiles. NOWHERE in the Bible.
Paul was ministering under the same covenant as Isaac was under which is the covenant promised to Isaac's father, who is Abraham according to the Bible;
"Gal 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise."

How do you twist the word “promise” into meaning a “covenant” from this verse??? This shows your shallow understanding of “promise” here. The promise mentioned here is the promise to ALL nations (which includes Gentiles) of being blessed through Abraham’s seed, which is by faith in Christ – see Gal. 3:14,17,18,22,29, 4:23,28.
- - - - - - - - - -

Ddub -
Nomotheteo- Strong's G3549
1) to enact laws
a) laws are enacted or prescribed for one, to be legislated for, furnished with laws
2) to sanction by law, enact

Just as I've been telling you, this tells us that the NC has been "sanctioned", "established", NOT activated.

I noticed how you steered way clear of that word >>> ENACT.

The NC has been enacted upon better promises. A word study will show “enacted” to be the perfect passive indicative tense.

>>>The perfect tense in Greek corresponds to the perfect tense in English, and describes an action which is viewed as having been completed in the past, once and for all, not needing to be repeated.<<<

Heb 8:6 says Christ is (present tense) mediator of a covenant - “enacted” upon better promises.

Ddub - THE BIBLE says Jesus mediates the NC, and it NEVER states it's in effect.

See above definition… and by inference.
- - - - - - - - - -

Ddub - The only thing you need to do is present scripture which states we're under the NC.

See “enacted” above…
- - - - - - - - -

Question:

Jesus said “This cup is the NEW testament in my blood…” – see 1 Corinthians 11:25, cf. Matthew 26:26. ASV

Tell me… WHY were the saints at Corinth (Jew and Gentile alike) and other Christians (the church) partaking of the “cup of the NEW covenant” ?? Were they making a mistake? Maybe they were "ministering" to the cup, but not serving the cup?

Also - Was the blood was Christ shed only for the Jews ?? Please explain.
- - - - - - - - - -

I have several spoons with which to feed you the truth. But I am afraid none of them are “silver” enough for you to accept the truth…

 

[ddub85]

@ Apollos

First you tell me 2 Cor 3:6 is saying the above, and then you say it is not a “direct part” of the verse. LOL !! You really talk out of both sides of your mouth. For brevity this post I will remove a lot of the “double speak” you have offered – which amounts to quite a bit.

By double speak I'm sure you mean those things that show your position to be obviously fraudulent. And I really don't understand your obsession with "correctly divide the word", but it is quite interesting. Could you show me where I said it was a direct part of the verse?
- - -
Ddub - For instance, the Bible NEVER says we're under the NC, it NEVER uses it in the present or past tense…

It actually does. Paul and others were “enabled” ministers of the NC and Christ was the mediator of the NC, which was “enacted” upon better promises.

Therefore, you are actually not telling the truth. Being a minister of something doesn't put you under what you minister ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE. To enact means to establish, and that's what the verse says has happened with the NC. Since you know these things, you are purposely telling an untruth. Again, the Bible NEVER says we're under the NC, it NEVER uses it in the present or past tense. You're falling waaaaaaaay short.

Ddub - and in Hbr 8 the same exact verse used in Jeremiah is repeated in it's exact YET TO COME form. That is application without inference.

Wrong! Certainly you can read better than this! Jeremiah’s quotation does not begin until Hb 8:8. Hebrews 8:6 gives us present information about the NC based upon what Christ did – not Jeremiah. You being disingenuous again or you just don’t know your numbers.

Comical. You're "INFERRING" that this present information says we're under the NC, and you're basing an entire theology upon that. Comical.

Hbr 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was "established" upon better promises.

There it is, right there in the Bible. It says the NC was ESTABLISHED, and that's what it means in Greek as well(see the Greek definition), which is what enacted means, crystal clear right there in the Bible. Yet, you're attempting to trick us into believing the word means activated in order to prove a fraudulent belief.

Please also note that the whole reason the Hebrew writer quotes Jeremiah was to show that the NEW covenant had come, just as Jeremiah prophesied.

Is that what you say, or is that what the Hbr writer says? The Bible I'm reading, the King James version right in front of me, has the Hbr writer saying that the NC has been ESTABLISHED, and NOWHERE does he say he quotes Jeremiah to show that the NC had come, as you untruthfully state.

You don’t listen to so many trying to help you.

Trying to help me by lying to me? By trying to get me to believe something that the Bible doesn't say? Listen, I'm showing you exactly what the Bible says, exactly what the word means in Greek, and you still refuse to believe it. You would prefer that I adhere to an untruth in order for you to continue deceiving people. We both know that the word means to establish, and there is no getting around it.

Here's more proof for you. The word for activate is used in the very same verse! "He hath OBTAINED..." That word "obtained" means to activate. That is what has been activated. The other word means to establish, hence the use of the two different words in this same verse. The word "establish" is used along with the NC, and it's made very plain in this verse.

You're obviously wrong. You should just admit it.
- - - - - - - - - -
Ddub - I mean, on a subject of that importance, of that magnitude, God would not leave us to "infer"…

Many things are taught by inference. Just because you need to be “spoon-fed” doesn’t mean inference is a bad way to instruct.

There is NOTHING of this magnitude taught in the Bible by "inference" alone. You have got to be kiddin' me. Nice try. You are now beginning to scare me with your fanaticism in supporting an untruth.

Ddub - I'll tell you what, find a scripture which says plainly that we're under the NC.

You wouldn’t accept it anymore than the plain truth above about 2 Cor. 3:6 or Hebrews 8:6. You would find your quibbles.

I won't accept it because it isn't true! I'm showing you over and over again, and you are refusing to accept the truth. Both scriptures have been shown to NOT say what you say they do. One says we're ministers, NOT that we're under the NC, the other says it was established, NOT activated as you fraudulently state. The word for activate is used in the same verse, and NOT where you say it is. Clearly fraudulent by any honest person's standards.

You do realize that others are reading this, don't you? It's time for the truth.
- - - - - - - - - -
Ddub - No, I'm saying that Jonah WAS a minister of God's word, and he ministered to Nineveh THEIR fate, which he was not a part of. He was MINISTER, and NOT recipient. Surely the difference is evident to you.

LOL !!! Helen Keller must be your girlfriend !
Jonah was accountable to and ministered the same word of God that he ministered to Nineveh. God’s word was the same and the fate for disobedience was the same.

Nice try. Jonah was not from Nineveh, and never participated in their sins. Therefore, Jonah was NOT to be a part of their fate. He went there to MINISTER to them about their fate. You should try reading your Bible! LOL!

Jonah would have shared the SAME FATE as Nineveh for disobedience to God’s word ! Jonah “ministered” the same thing that both Nineveh and Jonah were accountable to. The only difference was the geographical location.

Now THIS is truly laughable. You are really exposing yourself here. You are showing that you're willing to absolutely compromise the word of God in order to keep your untrue story alive.

You made no point! You attempted to make a distinction where there was no difference – just as you attempt to do with the NC.

The point and the distinction are both crystal clear. Jonah was not to be a part of Nineveh's fate, he was only to "minister" to them regarding their fate. You know this to be true, so I don't understand why you would go on record as stating otherwise. Bad judgment on your part. But that's what happens when you slip away from what's true.

Paul was a “minister” of the NEW covenant. He served that under which he would be held accountable to.

Paul, nor anyone else in the Bible ever stated that they served under the New Covenant. That is what YOU say, and it has nothing to do with what the Bible says. It is an untrue statement, and when you consider the facts, that's quite obvious.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ddub - What's relevant is that Paul said we are ministers of that covenant, and he didn't say we were under that covenant. That's what's relevant. Let's see if you can correctly divide that word!

You are saying Christians are servants of a covenant to which we are not accountable to? If the NC is not in effect – we are not accountable to it are we?LOL !

We, just like Jonah, are being asked to "minister" the NC. Nowhere are we told we are a part of it, or that it is currently active. Those are biblical facts, and NOT what I say.

Ddub - Hbr 8:8 "I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:". Now,... does that include you? Are you of the house of Israel or the house of Judah?

WHY do you read “ONLY” into this verse.

Great question. First, Israel and Judah are the "ONLY" ones mentioned in the verse. Second, there are NO VERSES that include anyone else in the New Covenant in the Bible. If anyone else was included, the Bible surely would say so. We would not need to "INFER" such a thing.

Jeremiah was speaking to the Jews. Jeremiah never said that the NEW covenant would be established ONLY with the Jews ! The NEW covenant is for ALL nations !!! Please correctly “divide” the word !

You just said that the New Covenant was for ALL nations, but you have NO SCRIPTURES, NONE, ZERO, ZILCH, NADA, NONE... that say so. Then you say this is correctly dividing the word. No wonder we have so many false religions in the world.

And then there is the matter of Christians of being “spiritual Israel” – a topic too deep for your understanding. Or dare we involve scriptures relating how “by faith” Gentiles become the “seed” of Abraham?

Haha! Comical. Or dare we involve the fact that being of the "seed" of Abraham has absolutely nothing to do with being Israel. Or dare we bring up the fact that one must first be Israel before one can be spiritual Israel. Truly comical, this "deep understanding" of yours.
- - - - - - - - - -
Ddub - However, in this case, I don't even know what you're going on and on about. Word? Covenant? I can't make sense of what you're trying to say.

When people get caught with their “pants down”, your reaction of “I don’t understand…” is usually the case. We can move on as I am certain anyone else that may be reading this thread knows you changed what you originally said in reference to what 2 Cor. 3:6.

I haven't changed a thing. I believe in all that I said. But I do find it strange that you would say that the NC is for all nations and claim this is correctly dividing the word, when there are NO SCRIPTURES that say the NC is for all nations.
- - -
Ddub - Wow, you're really spinning yourself in serious circles here. Let me just say that the NC is the word of God, but I have no knowledge of Paul instructing Timothy to preach it.

Let me just say that because the NEW covenant is the WORD of God, and because all Christians are to preach the WORD of God, then we are to preach the NEW covenant. If not, why not?

I have no problem with that.
- - - - - - - - - -
Ddub - The Bible also never says the NC is for Gentiles. NOWHERE in the Bible.
Paul was ministering under the same covenant as Isaac was under which is the covenant promised to Isaac's father, who is Abraham according to the Bible;
"Gal 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise."

How do you twist the word “promise” into meaning a “covenant” from this verse???

Are you saying the promise to Abraham isn't a covenant? You'd better read Gal 3:17 for starters. You'd better read your Bible.

This shows your shallow understanding of “promise” here. The promise mentioned here is the promise to ALL nations (which includes Gentiles) of being blessed through Abraham’s seed, which is by faith in Christ – see Gal. 3:14,17,18,22,29, 4:23,28.

And? You are aware of the fact that this promise is one part of the total promise in Gen 12:1-3, don't you?
- - - - - - - - - -
Ddub -
Nomotheteo- Strong's G3549
1) to enact laws
a) laws are enacted or prescribed for one, to be legislated for, furnished with laws
2) to sanction by law, enact

Just as I've been telling you, this tells us that the NC has been "sanctioned", "established", NOT activated.

I noticed how you steered way clear of that word >>> ENACT.

I did? I thought I was defining it for you. I'll steer right into it for you. The word enact means to establish, sanction, NOT activate.

The NC has been enacted upon better promises. A word study will show “enacted” to be the perfect passive indicative tense.

>>>The perfect tense in Greek corresponds to the perfect tense in English, and describes an action which is viewed as having been completed in the past, once and for all, not needing to be repeated.<<<

I totally agree with that, and it fits perfectly with what I said. Now,... care to define "obtained" for me, the word used in the same verse? Care to define those two words, and explain why you're using the meaning of obtained where the Bible says established?

Heb 8:6 says Christ is (present tense) mediator of a covenant - “enacted” upon better promises.

Yes it does. Christ has clearly established, sanctioned, the New Covenant. No doubt about it.

Ddub - THE BIBLE says Jesus mediates the NC, and it NEVER states it's in effect.

See above definition… and by inference.

The above definition coincides with established, sanctioned, and if you continue to define your belief by inference when it isn't necessary, you will continue to be deceived.
- - - - - - - - - -
Ddub - The only thing you need to do is present scripture which states we're under the NC.

See “enacted” above…

Can't do it, can you?
- - - - - - - - -

Question:

Jesus said “This cup is the NEW testament in my blood…” – see 1 Corinthians 11:25, cf. Matthew 26:26. ASV

Tell me… WHY were the saints at Corinth (Jew and Gentile alike) and other Christians (the church) partaking of the “cup of the NEW covenant” ?? Were they making a mistake? Maybe they were "ministering" to the cup, but not serving the cup?

They were doing as Christ told them to do. But let's tell the whole truth. Christ also said in the same breath,
Mat 26:29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

"Until that day", and today is not that day. Uh-oh!

Also - Was the blood was Christ shed only for the Jews ?? Please explain.

Of course not. The blood shed by Christ was for all, and for both the Old and New Covenants. Both Jews and Gentiles are included in the Old Covenant (Gal. 3), and the New Covenant is for Jews only (Hbr. 8:6).
- - - - - - - - - -

I have several spoons with which to feed you the truth. But I am afraid none of them are “silver” enough for you to accept the truth…

You've already shown that you don't really believe the truth, that you prefer to "infer" those things you believe rather than accept what is written. What you're serving I refuse to eat.

God Bless!

 

[Apollos1]

Ddub &#8211;

I took note that your mood is &#8220;breezy&#8221; today. I guess that has something to do with you getting caught with your &#8220;theological pants&#8221; down so often&#8230; Hmmm?

Ddub - By double speak I'm sure you mean those things that show your position to be obviously fraudulent.

Not at all. I mean those things that YOU have said and then turn right around and correct yourself for, or the things you &#8220;rephrase&#8221; when you give a single scripture TWO different meanings. You know, when you get caught talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Ddub - Could you show me where I said it was a direct part of the verse?

See your post #44 for the first time you told me what 2 Cor. 3:6 was saying. You said &#8220;Paul is telling us to correctly divide the word of God&#8230;&#8221; (Of course, we know it says no such thing.)Then I quoted you several times as having said that it says this. WHAT &#8211; are you going to quibble that you did not &#8220;exactly&#8221; say that &#8220;correctly divide&#8221; was a &#8220;direct part&#8221; of the verse here, after you claimed this is what 2 Cor. 3:6 was saying? Maybe it was just an &#8220;inference&#8221; you wanted to make without actually saying &#8220;direct part&#8221;? Would that be it?
- - -
Ddub - Therefore, you are actually not telling the truth. Being a minister of something doesn't put you under what you minister ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE.

I am certain you do not know what the truth is. Paul clearly states that God had &#8220;enabled&#8221; him as a minister of a NEW covenant. you then quibble that Paul wasn&#8217;t under the covenant that he served. Your point sounds silly enough without my pointing it out.

Ddub - Comical. You're "INFERRING" that this present information says we're under the NC, and you're basing an entire theology upon that. Comical.

I try to be entertaining, but I see that you did not have the courage to admit you were WRONG when you failed to notice that Jeremiah&#8217;s quote did not begin until verse 8 in Hebrews chapter 8. But in verse 6 information is given in reference to what Christ had accomplished in reference to the enacting of the NEW covenant. You just wish this is all I had to offer in support of the NEW covenant being a reality today.

Hbr 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was "established" upon better promises.

Ddub - There it is, right there in the Bible. It says the NC was ESTABLISHED, and that's what it means in Greek as well(see the Greek definition), which is what enacted means, crystal clear right there in the Bible.

For those that can see the truth and need no spoon-feeding &#8211; yes!

Ddub - NOWHERE does [the Hebrew writer] say he quotes Jeremiah to show that the NC had come, as you untruthfully state.

Hebrews 8 &#8211; quik exegesis:

Verse 6 &#8211; Christ is the mediator of a NEW covenant &#8211; it has been ENACTED upon better promises (than the OLD covenant had been enacted upon).
Verse 7 &#8211; The OC could not save, so a second (not a third) covenant was sought after.
Verse 8 &#8211; Jeremiah says the time of that NEW covenant shall come.
Verse 9 &#8211; The NEW covenant won&#8217;t be like the old covenant I made with the Jewish fathers at Sinai. They did not keep my covenant.
Verse 10 &#8211; The (new) covenant I will make will be in the minds and hearts of the people &#8211; a spiritual covenant versus the physical nature of the old.
Verse 11 &#8211; All partakers of this (new) covenant will know me/be my people before they are part of it. (This was the opposite under the old covenant.)
Verse 12 &#8211; I will forgive their sins (not possible under the old covenant)
Verse 13 - This being a new covenant, of necessity, makes the other the old. And the old covenant is growing old and almost gone at that time.

The point the Hebrew writer is making is that the NEW covenant that Christ now mediates and enacted upon better promises is the one that Jeremiah spoke of.
You can&#8217;t see the forest for all of the trees, huh?


Ddub - Trying to help me by lying to me?

So judgmental today &#8211; you need to change your mood indicator from &#8220;breezy&#8221; to &#8220;grumpy&#8221;.
- - - - - - - - - -


Ddub - Nice try. Jonah was not from Nineveh, and never participated in their sins. Therefore, Jonah was NOT to be a part of their fate. He went there to MINISTER to them about their fate.

I would say excellent try! As I said, the geographical difference does not make a difference in accountability to God&#8217;s word or the fate one shares with those that do not obey it.

The location may be different, the sins may be different by different people, but the accountability to the Word and the fate are the same. Conclusion: Jonah ministered under that to which he would be accountable &#8211; just as Paul ministered under the covenant to which he would be held accountable. Your insistence to make a distinction without any difference only illustrates your desperation.
.
Ddub - Jonah was not to be a part of Nineveh's fate, he was only to "minister" to them regarding their fate.

Jonah was accountable to God as were the people of Nineveh. The &#8220;fate&#8221; for disobedience was punishment whether for Nineveh or Jonah or anyone else. You just can&#8217;t find a way to separate Jonah&#8217;s ministry from God&#8217;s word to support your spurious supposition about Paul ministering under the New covenant but not being accountable to it.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Ddub - Or dare we involve the fact that being of the "seed" of Abraham has absolutely nothing to do with being Israel.

No one today need be concerned whether they are of physical Israel or not &#8211; it makes no difference as far as their eternal destiny.

Ddub - Or dare we bring up the fact that one must first be Israel before one can be spiritual Israel.

Are you saying everyone must become physical Israel? Go ahead &#8211; prove this!
- - - - - - - - - -

Ddub - The Bible also never says the NC is for Gentiles. NOWHERE in the Bible.
Sure it does &#8211; the promise THROUGH Abraham was for ALL nations of the world to be blessed &#8211; this through Christ. Christ&#8217;s shed blood accomplished this &#8211; the blood that ratified the new covenant. You won&#8217;t accept this because it doesn&#8217;t spoon-feed it to you, and because of your misconceptions about most of the covenants made throughout the Bible.

Ddub - Paul was ministering under the same covenant as Isaac was under which is the covenant promised to Isaac's father, who is Abraham according to the Bible;

Nope &#8211; Paul, just as he states (2Cor 3:6) ministered &#8211; was &#8220;enabled&#8221; by God to minister - the NEW covenant. The promise that Issac and Paul benefited from was the promise of Christ (salvation) that came THROUGH Abraham &#8211; for all nations.

Ddub - Are you saying the promise to Abraham isn't a covenant?

No &#8211; that is not what I am saying.
- - - - - - - - - -

Nomotheteo - Hb 8:6
1) to enact laws
a) laws are enacted or prescribed for one, to be legislated for, furnished with laws
2) to sanction by law, enact

Ddub - Just as I've been telling you, this [Hb 8:6] tells us that the NC has been "sanctioned", "established", NOT activated.

I see you are choosing to hide behind partial definitions once again. ENACT is the first part of the definition. In fact, ENACT is a part of the second part of that definition. Not only do you choose to hide behind a partial definition, you choose to hide behind a partial of a partial &#8211; LOL !

Let&#8217;s look again at the TENSE of ENACT here in Hb 8:6&#8230; perfect tense. You missed the import of the meaning in my last post. You do that a lot.

>>>The perfect tense in Greek corresponds to the perfect tense in English, and describes an action which is viewed as having been completed in the past, once and for all, not needing to be repeated.<<<

I conclude that the covenant that Christ mediates has been>>>>>>>>>> sanctioned AND ENACTED (made into law) ! It says nothing about it being IDLE or DORMANT !

Ddub - &#8230;care to define "obtained" for me, the word used in the same verse?

According to THAYER &#8211; to reach attain, obtain, get, become master of.

So Christ mediates the covenant He has &#8220;obtained&#8221;. This has been enacted (made into law) upon better promises. If you can see that the sun is red, you know the New covenant is here. Yep!
- - - - - - - - -

 

[Apollos1]

Part 2/2.

Ddub - They were doing as Christ told them to do. But let's tell the whole truth. Christ also said in the same breath, Mat 26:29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

Uh – you did not tell me WHY Gentiles were drinking the cup of the NEW covenant Ddub. Having trouble keeping up with me here?
I can type slower for you if that will help.

Why would Gentiles be drinking the cup of the NEW covenant? – 1 Cor 11:25.
Hmmm?

So yes – let’s get the whole truth out here!

Why would Christ tell the Corinthians to “commune” if Christ were not going to “commune” with them?? (cf. 1 Cor. 10:16).
What was the purpose (in your view) of the Lord’s supper for the Corinthians?
Especially – tell us the purpose for the Gentiles to do this.
What did Christ mean when He said – “This cup is the new covenant in my blood.’” ???
It appears you have both Jew and Gentile communing with… no one!!!!

Although off-topic, “that day” refers to the day the kingdom would come. The kingdom came on Pentecost in Acts 2 with the establishment of the church. The church is God’s kingdom on earth, until delivered up to the Father on the last day.

By way of summary YOU claim:

-Christ is the mediator a covenant that is not in effect.
-Christ enacted a covenant that is not in effect.
-Christ told Jew and Gentile to partake of the cup of the new covenant that is not in effect.
-Christ told Jew and Gentile to have communion, but He is not partaking with them.
-Christ told Gentiles to commune as part of a covenant that they have no part in.
-Paul and others were enabled by God to be ministers of a covenant that is not in effect.

LOL !

Ddub - "Until that day", and today is not that day. Uh-oh!

Finally got one right! Today is not that day. Pentecost in Acts 2 was.

Ddub - The blood shed by Christ was for all, and for both the Old and New Covenants. Both Jews and Gentiles are included in the Old Covenant (Gal. 3), and the New Covenant is for Jews only (Hbr. 8:6).

Wrong on both covenants remarks…

The OLD covenant was made only with physical Israel at Sinai and was ratified with the blood of animals. The NEW covenant can be made by ALL men as promised with God and was ratified by the blood of Christ.

The promise [Gal. 4:28] that came through Abraham was for ALL nations to be blessed through his seed – which was Christ. The NEW covenant is a covenant for ALL nations to be made with Christ for salvation – something the OLD could not do. Christ mediates that NEW covenant right now, as it has been made into law upon better promises than the old had.

Happy New Year !

 

[ddub85]

@ Apollos

HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!

I took note... so often… Hmmm?

It always says breezy. It's more about breezin' through your posts without much of a challenge (lol).

Ddub - By double speak.. fraudulent.

Not at all... of your mouth.

Would claiming to be under a covenant that the Bible never says you're under count? Hmmm?

Ddub - Could you show me where I said it was a direct part of the verse?

See your post #44...part”? Would that be it?

Oh,... I get it now. That was just a way of saying that you should acept the truth, take the verse for what it says. You took it as if I was saying that's what the verse actually said. That's unfortunate.
- - -

I am certain... my pointing it out.

As YOU state, Paul has been made a "minister". That is exactly what Jonah was, and I see you're avoiding that point. A minister can be that without being a part of what he's ministering. Jonah is the solid, biblical proof of that fact. Because it negates your point, you refuse to accept this biblical truth. That's a part of being less than forthright and honest within the discussion. None of us want to be wrong, but at times ALL of us are. We must learn to accept that fact, and move on. It's a much better technique than pretending that a solid point is "silly". That kind of response always comes back to bite. Take my word for that.

I try to be entertaining,...

At times you are, I'll admit that!

... but I see that... a reality today.

I don't know what you're talking about but if I failed to recognize that Jer's quote began at verse 8, I do both apologize and admit it now. (???) Feel better?

I hope you do realize that "enact" and "establish" are synonymous. And if you have more to offer, now would be a good time to do so.

**Hbr 8:6...
Ddub - There it is, right there in the Bible. It says the NC was ESTABLISHED, and that's what it means in Greek as well(see the Greek definition), which is what enacted means, crystal clear right there in the Bible.

For those that can see the truth and need no spoon-feeding – yes!

So we agree here? Excellent!

Hebrews 8 – quik exegesis:
Verse 6 – Christ is the mediator... enacted upon).

Which says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about it being active. It has been enacted (ESTABLISHED), which DOES NOT MEAN ACTIVE. Therefore, this doesn't help your position.

Verse 7 – The OC could not save, so a second (not a third) covenant was sought after.

Unfortunately for you, that is NOT what the Bible says. The LAW could not save is what it says. The law IS NOT the Old Covenant, and Gal. 3:17 makes that fact very clear. I've shown you this before. READ THE BIBLE more carefully my friend.

Verse 8 – Jeremiah says the time of that NEW covenant shall come.

And it shall. But notice that the Hebrew writer NEVER says it has come, and NEVER says it is here. He only repeats what Jeremiah said. On top of that NO ONE ELSE in the Bible says it has come, or that it is here. Yet, you say it and claim that the Bible syas it by "inference". (And you call my position silly?)

Verse 9 – The NEW covenant won’t be like the old covenant I made with the Jewish fathers at Sinai. They did not keep my covenant.

Errr... please don't add to the words of the Bible. That is a Jehovah's Witness trick isn't it? ("...the word was 'a' God"). You're trying the same thing when you say the Old Covenant was made with the Jewish fathers at Sinai. That's not what the verse says. If it did, it would contradict Gal. 3:17, and the Bible doesn't contradict itself. So let's stick to the Bible rather than your "inference", ok?

Verse 10 – The (new) covenant... physical nature of the old.

Again you're confusing the law with the Old Covenant and that is causing you all kinds of problems. Correct that problem and try again. The covenant was 430 years before the law.

Verse 11 – All partakers of this (new) covenant... old covenant.)

Sorry, but that's not what the Bible says. I don't know what you're reading, but it's not the Bible.

Verse 12 – I will forgive their sins (not possible under the old covenant)

Hbr 9:15 says the blood of Christ is for the sins of the Old Covenant. Could you please explain? Also, while you're at it, could you also explain why the writer isn't saying that "He has forgiven" (past tense), and is only repeating Jeremiah, saying it in a future tense? There can only be one reason; IT HASN'T HAPPENED YET!

Verse 13 - This being a new covenant,... gone at that time.

This verse may be the most telling. Did the writer say "is growing old", or "has died"? The former means it's still there, and the latter means it is gone. The writer uses the former, meaning it's still here, yet you use the latter, meaning it's gone. One of you is WRONG. You say "almost gone", and then argue that it's actually gone and replaced by the new! You're contradicting yourself here. Could you please explain?

The point the Hebrew... the trees, huh?

Yes, that's correct. However, that isn't your argument! You are arguing that the covenant Jeremiah spoke of is now active, and that is printed NOWHERE in the Bible. You saying that it's established doesn't prove that it's active. You're confusing those two things, and it has your theology all twisted up.

As you can see here, NONE of these verses actually help your position when looked at closely. All of them only hurt your position.

Ddub - Trying to help me by lying to me?

So judgmental today – you need to change your mood indicator from “breezy” to “grumpy”.

Haha! Finally you may be right. That did come out kinda grumpy. It wasn't meant to be. For that I do apologize.
- - - - - - - - - -
Ddub - Nice try... about their fate.

I would say... do not obey it.

Come on Apollos, you're better than that. That's like saying that you're guilty and should be thrown in prison for murders you didn't commit with those thrown in prison for murder. That's their crime, and they must take the punishment for it, not you. It's the same with the people of Nineveh and Jonah. You know it, I know it, and everybody else knows it. So rather than me making a big deal of you playing some kind of dodgeball, let's just do this the easy way and have you admit the simple truth here. Ok?

The location... illustrates your desperation.

Again,... don't make me do it. Apollos isn't in jail for the murder that John Doe committed just like Jonah was not to be punished for the sins that Nineveh committed. Admit that simple truth, and let's move on. Don't embarrass yourself in this manner. It ain't worth it.

Jonah was... being accountable to it.

I'm gonna give you a chance before I tee off.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

No one today need be concerned whether they are of physical Israel or not – it makes no difference as far as their eternal destiny.

Amen! No one today need be concerned whether they are Jew or Gentile, as BOTH can have an eternal destiny with God. Do you agree? Or do you believe that one must be Israel in order to be saved?

Are you saying everyone must become physical Israel? Go ahead – prove this!

No, I'm saying that there is no need to be any kind of Israel to be saved, as God is no respector of persons, and loves us all whether Jew or Gentile. God saves Gentiles just like He saves Jews, and therefore we don't have to become Israel of any kind, physical or spiritual, to be saved. If you disagree in any way, please explain.
- - - - - - - - - -
Ddub - The Bible also never says the NC is for Gentiles. NOWHERE in the Bible.

Sure it does – the promise ... throughout the Bible.

By spoon-feed, do you mean the Bible actually saying it, rather than you "inferring"?

The blood of Christ ratified the Old Covenant as well, as God is not a mediator of one as you are contending.

Ddub - Paul was... the Bible;

Nope –

Nope? "Now we (PAUL!), brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise." Gal. 4:28.

Here you have Paul himself declaring that he's under the same covenant as Isaac, and YOU have the audacity to say that this isn't what he means! And there is simply no arguing what covenant Issaac was under. He was under teh covenant given to his father. Or maybe you would be foolish enough to make that argument. I don't want to speak for you.

-Paul, just as he... for all nations.

You're telling the truth, and that's why it lends no support to your argument. Paul "ministered" the NC, he was not under it. Isaac and Paul were under the Abrahamic Covenant, just as Paul states. The Bible says it in a very matter-of-fact way, in a "spoon-fed" way, and you refuse to be "spoon-fed"!!! You want to "infer" your own interpretation. I think you should just accept God's.

Are you now telling me that the Abrahamic Covenant is the New Covenant? Please explain and be very clear and thorough.

Ddub - Are you saying the promise to Abraham isn't a covenant?

No – that is not what I am saying.

Then what do you mean by the statement you made?
- - - - - - - - - -

Nomotheteo - Hb 8:6...
Ddub - Just as I've been telling you, this [Hb 8:6] tells us that the NC has been "sanctioned", "established", NOT activated.

I see you are... a partial – LOL !

Are you kiddin' me? Enact, as I already told and showed you, means the same thing as sanctioned and established.

Let’s look again... that a lot.

If I do that a lot, then you should point it out each time I do it. I don't believe I do that alot. But continue...

>

>>The perfect tense... be repeated.<<<

I agree! The action is the same action as sanctioned and established. So what's the problem?

I conclude that... IDLE or DORMANT!

It has been sanctioned and enacted! Just like the Abrahamic Covenant was sanctioned in Gen 15. So just because it has been sanctioned, that doesn't mean that it's "active". By sanctioning it with His death, Christ only had to die once. Get it?

Ddub - …care to define "obtained" for me, the word used in the same verse?

According to THAYER – to reach attain, obtain,... New covenant is here. Yep!

So what we see here is two different words with two different meanings. One has been "obtained", and the other has been "enacted". One is active, the other is not. The difference between the two is clear. That's why it says one has been "obtained", and ALSO the other has been "enacted". The clear, "spoon-fed" distinction is made by the Bible, yet ignored by you. Wow!

God Bless!