Israel?

[ddub85]

Continued...
@ GLJCA

I have explained thoroughly what the promise and or promises that God made to Israel were. The promise that Paul was speaking of was the promise of justification by faith which carried with it the forgiveness of sins also promised in Jer 31:34.

When was Paul saying this? When did Paul tie Gentiles to Jer 31:34? List the scripture(s).

It also dealt with the promise that in Abraham all the nations would be blessed. So if you want to use the word promise(singular) that's fine.

Again, it doesn't matter what word I want to use. The Bible says promise, and so should we. Don't you agree? And according to Paul, it ONLY dealt with the promise to Abraham.

Quote:
I know of no such thing. Where does the Bible say that? According to Paul, we Gentiles were given the blessing of forgiveness of sins in the promise to Abraham (Gal 3), and we're under the same promise as Isaac (Gal 4:28). So where do you come up with our forgiveness of sins in Jer 31:34, when we Gentiles aren't even mentioned in the promise? That's a little bizarre, don't you think?

You see the problem with Dispys is that they only look at the OT scriptures and skip over the NT fulfillment of those scriptures, because they are convinced that the New Covenant is not for them but for the Jews.

So... Gal 3 and 4:28 are OT scriptures?

Do you partake of the Lord's Supper at your church? If so, why do you partake of it, if the New Covenant or Testament is not for you
1 Cor 11:25 After the same manner also [he took] the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink [it], in remembrance of me.
Testament and Covenant or the same words here(diatheke). Therefore if the blood of Christ was the blood of the New Testament/Covenant as the Bible says it is then why would you be partaking it?

Why? "This do in remembrance of me"- we've been commanded to do so. But Jesus also said in the next 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.
But of course, you would like to ignore this verse, right?

You see Jesus shed His blood in fulfillment of the promise of the New Covenant given by God in Jer 31:31-35.

And you likewise see that Jesus shed His blood in fulfillment of the sins of the Old Covenant.

He was the provision or fulfillment of the promise. Now if you have taken Christ as your Saviour then you have appropriated His shed blood of the New Covenant to wash away your sins. Now if the New Covenant is not for you then your sins can not be forgiven.

Why don't you show the plain scripture(s) that says we're currently under the New Covenant, and that the New Covenant was given to Gentiles. On an issue of this importance, I'm sure you can list a page of scriptures. So let's see them.

Quote:
Correct. What promise was Isaac under? He was dead and gone when you say the New Covenant began, so it can't be the New Covenant, not even by your own incorrect definition of it's start. So please answer the question: WHAT COVENANT IS ISAAC UNDER???? Because you and I are under the very same one, according to scripture.

Isaac was in the Old Covenant but was promised the New Covenant as was all of the children of promise.

Isaac died under the Old Covenant, correct? So WHEN does/did he receive the New Covenant?

You see those in the Old Covenant saints could not be made perfect until Christ's blood of the New Covenant was shed.

What scripture? Is this YOU speaking, or is it the Bible? If it's the Bible, then list the scripture.

All the righteous OT saints were made perfect along with us in Christ.(Heb 11:40) They believed in Christ but could not be made perfect without us and without the shed blood...

OK,...

... of the New Covenant.

Fiction. Again,... is that YOU speaking, or is it the Bible? If it's the Bible, then list the scripture.

Isaac looked forward in faith to the coming of the New Covenant Messiah and His shed blood of the NC for their salvation and we look backwards in faith to the New Covenant blood of Christ for our salvation.

Notice that you're creating your own theology as there are no scriptures to support your statements.

So yes you are right, we, as well as Isaac, are all under the New Covenant.

I never said such a thing, because the Bible never says such a thing. That is YOU talking, not the Bible.

Dispys tend to skip over the New Testament fulfillment of the Old Covenant promises. They do that because if the promises are fulfilled in the Church, Dispensationalism will collapse. In fact if you study the evolution of Dispensationalism since it's inception in the 1880s you will see that it is slowly but surely collapsing for lack of a scriptural base.

What I see in CT theology is a myth beginning with the 'quantum leap' that they have become Israel, replacing God's Israel, and have laid claim to all that God has given to Israel. All of this done without scripture. That myth ALONE collapses CT from it's inception because there is no biblical support for such a thing.

God Bless!

 

[GLJCA]

Continued...
@ GLJCA


DDUB,
Are you reading my posts? You are asking me the same questions over and over again. Questions that I answered and thoroughly covered in my post but I will go over it again.

When was Paul saying this? When did Paul tie Gentiles to Jer 31:34? List the scripture(s).

Paul and the writer of Hebrews tied the CHURCH to Jer 31:34 not just the Gentiles. The Gentiles who are Christ's are tied to Jer 31 by virtue of their relationship to Christ.

I also showed conclusively in my last post that the word promise and promises were used in Gal 3 speaking of the same thing but I guess you missed it. Either that are you are trying so hard to prove me wrong you are missing it. The New Testament is the fulfillment of the Old Covenant promises and they are being fulfilled in the Church of Jesus Christ.

Gal 3: 16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

The promises or promise of the New Covenant was made to Abraham and his seed, Christ. The promises of the New Covenant are forgiveness of sin, God being called "our God" and He calling us "His People". God writing His law in our hearts which Paul wrote about to the Corinthian Christians. One just has to do a little study to find out that the writers of the New Testament saw the fulfillment of the New Covenant in the Church of Jesus Christ.

Paul wrote to the Corinthians concerning Jer 31: 33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
2Cor 3:3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

The writer of Hebrews, wrote to Jewish Christians about their High Priest Jesus Christ. He ties Christians to the Old Covenant promises.

Heb 8:1 ¶ Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
Then he ties the New Covenant promise to them.
8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
Then he goes on in chapter 9 to show them that the forgiveness of their sins is directly connected to the promise of the New Covenant, which is the promise that Jer 31 is talking about.
Heb 9:15 ¶ And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
Oh also this shows that the New Covenant is in force today not some obscure time in the future.

Why? "This do in remembrance of me"- we've been commanded to do so. But Jesus also said in the next 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.
But of course, you would like to ignore this verse, right?

No sir I do not ignore anything in scripture.
Acts 10:41 Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.
Christ did eat and drink new with them after His resurrection when he was given all authority in heaven and in earth. He was given the Kingdom at that time and those of us who believe are translated into that kingdom.

You know what is a mystery to me? I can't understand why Christ would want you to partake of the Lord's Supper speaking of the New Covenant when, as you say, the New Covenant is not for you. You believe that you are celebrating something that doesn't even pertain to the Church of Jesus Christ. It only pertains to the Jews. Why would He want His Church to remember and celebrate something that does not pertain to them?
You say that the blood of the New Covenant (1Cor 11:25) washes away your sins even though, you believe that the New Covenant is only for the Jews. Is that not inconsistent? It seems that you really do not know why you are taking it, other than you were just told to.

And you likewise see that Jesus shed His blood in fulfillment of the sins of the Old Covenant.

Yep I see that but I also see that His blood is the blood of the New Covenant. Isn't that what the Bible says?
Hebrews 9 says that the only way the New Covenant could go into effect was that the testor had to die, which happened at the Cross, where the blood of the New Covenant paid for my sins.

Why don't you show the plain scripture(s) that says we're currently under the New Covenant, and that the New Covenant was given to Gentiles. On an issue of this importance, I'm sure you can list a page of scriptures. So let's see them.

See above. Paul plainly connects the Church of Jesus Christ to the New Covenant is almost all of his epistles. You just have to take off your Dispensational blinders to see them.

Isaac died under the Old Covenant, correct? So WHEN does/did he receive the New Covenant?

Quote:

You see those in the Old Covenant saints could not be made perfect until Christ's blood of the New Covenant was shed.

What scripture? Is this YOU speaking, or is it the Bible? If it's the Bible, then list the scripture.

I did but I will again. Heb 11:39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:
40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.
You know I really believe that you are not reading my posts very carefully because you keep asking me questions that I covered in my post.

Quote:

So yes you are right, we, as well as Isaac, are all under the New Covenant.

I never said such a thing, because the Bible never says such a thing. That is YOU talking, not the Bible.

Excuse me you made the statement that we are under the same covenant as Isaac, so I just agreed with you. Do you even read what you write?

What I see in CT theology is a myth beginning with the 'quantum leap' that they have become Israel, replacing God's Israel, and have laid claim to all that God has given to Israel. All of this done without scripture. That myth ALONE collapses CT from it's inception because there is no biblical support for such a thing.

Since you said that apparently you believe that the Dispy can give scripture for what they believe. I would love for you to give me the scripture for beliefs such as a premillenial rapture or a 2000 year gap between the 69th and 70th week of Daniel or scripture proving that the New Covenant isn't in effect today. Why don't you provide scripture for those? You can't because it ain't there. They are figments of the Dispy imagination.

GLJCA

 

[ddub85]

@ GLJCA

DDUB,
Are you reading my posts? You are asking me the same questions over and over again. Questions that I answered and thoroughly covered in my post but I will go over it again.

"Thoroughly covered"? There are more holes in your answers than stars in the sky. If you would contend with my replies to your answers, you would see that.

Quote:
When was Paul saying this? When did Paul tie Gentiles to Jer 31:34? List the scripture(s).

Paul and the writer of Hebrews tied the CHURCH to Jer 31:34 not just the Gentiles.

See, this is one of the problems with CTers. Paul, nor the writer of Hebrews, said Jer 31:34 was for Gentiles. Second, neither even hinted Jer 31:34 was for Gentiles. Of course it's part of the church because Israel is a part of the church. But it's not for Gentiles, and the Bible never says that it is. That would be the point.
Consider this FACT. The Bible says Gentiles are felowheirs, meaning we are to receive what we've been assigned/allotted. The Bible allots to us this one promise;
Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, [saying], In thee shall all nations be blessed.
Paul ties us directly to this single promise, which is an Old Covenant promise. We are directly tied to the Old covenant. See that? Undeniable. Also, we're not tied to any other promises. There is no tie for us Gentiles to Jer 31:34.
Furthermore, Paul consistently says PROMISE (singular) when speaking of us Gentiles, and PROMISES (plural) when speaking to the Jews. I know you think there is no difference between promise and promises, and you wish to totally ignore my example of Holy Spirit vs. Holy Spirits. The main point is that it's important because Paul makes it important. There's a REASON Paul says promise about us Gentiles, and promises when speaking of the Jews. There's a REASON Paul tells us we receive what we've been allotted, and shows us what we've been allotted. So what do we have in just this one point?
1) Jer 31:34 tied to the church through Israel ONLY, not through Gentiles.
2) Gentiles are fellowheirs, receiving what we've been allotted.
3) Gentiles have been allotted the one promise listed in Gal 3:8.
4) The single promise we've been allotted is an Old Covenant promise, NOT a New Covenant promise.

The Gentiles who are Christ's are tied to Jer 31 by virtue of their relationship to Christ.

You make this statement with absolutely NO scripture which says such a thing. The Bible consistently says, Old and New Testament, that Jer 31 is to and for Israel and Judah. That would EXCLUDE Gentiles. You seem to be arguing that this would include Gentiles, as Gentiles are Israel ACCORDING TO YOU, not according to the Bible. It seems this entire argument comes down to you proving this 'quantum leap', this amazing transformation of Gentiles to Jews.
If we Gentiles become Israel when saved, then there are no saved Gentiles. That would be nonbiblical.

I also showed conclusively in my last post that the word promise and promises were used in Gal 3 speaking of the same thing but I guess you missed it.

Now I have to ask if you read my post or not. The Holy Spirit didn't make mistakes. He stated promise to Gentiles, and promises to Jews. You see it, but you're attempting to ignore it, pretend that it doesn't exist. Changing something singular to plural can change the entire meaning of the Bible. I showed you that with Holy Spirit/Holy Spirits, but again you chose to pretend that it was never said. How about when Paul distinguishes between seed and seeds in Gal 3:16? Does your logic hold up? Ignoring the truth won't improve your position.
You know as well as I know that promise and promises are two different words. For you to argue they're not is utterly ridiculous.

Either that are you are trying so hard to prove me wrong you are missing it. The New Testament is the fulfillment of the Old Covenant promises and they are being fulfilled in the Church of Jesus Christ.

True. But we Gentiles have what we've been allotted, not whatever we may want or claim.

Gal 3: 16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Let's just consider what these verses actually say.
First, the promises (plural) are to the seed. The seed is made up of Jews and Gentiles. So all of the promises are present in the seed. Is this saying all of the promises are to all of the seed? NO! It's saying the promises are to the seed.
Paul says the promises are in the seed, and the seed receives the promises they've been allotted. Paul says we Gentiles have been allotted the single promise.
Now look at v. 29. We are Abraham's seed, "AND HEIRS ACCORDING TO THE PROMISE." The single promise. It doesn't say promises, as of many; but as of one, "according to the promise", which is one single promise.

The promises or promise of the New Covenant was made to Abraham and his seed, Christ.

Now that is just an untrue statement. The Bible says no such thing. YOU are saying that, not the Bible. That's why you list no scripture to go along with the erroneous statement.

The promises of the New Covenant are forgiveness of sin, God being called "our God" and He calling us "His People". God writing His law in our hearts which Paul wrote about to the Corinthian Christians. One just has to do a little study to find out that the writers of the New Testament saw the fulfillment of the New Covenant in the Church of Jesus Christ.

Again, the Bible doesn't agree with you. NOWHERE does the Bible say the New Covenant is for the church. It says it's for Israel and Judah, and that doesn't include Gentiles.

Paul wrote to the Corinthians concerning Jer 31: 33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
2Cor 3:3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

You are thoroughly confused. Paul doesn't mention Jer 31:33 in Corinthians. What Paul is comparing is law to grace, which is a comparison of the Old Covenant to the Old Covenant, as BOTH the law and grace are Old Covenant things. He doesn't even mention the New Covenant.

The writer of Hebrews, wrote to Jewish Christians about their High Priest Jesus Christ. He ties Christians to the Old Covenant promises.

Are you a Jewish Christian? If so, how do you come to that conclusion? Is it a biblical conclusion?

Heb 8:1 ¶ Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
Then he ties the New Covenant promise to them.
8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

Are you Israel or Judah? If so, how so? You haven't shown at all how you make this 'quantum leap'.

9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

Were your fathers led out of Egypt? Is this you?

10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord;

Are you the house of Israel? If so, how so? How do you make this 'quantum leap'?

I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
Then he goes on in chapter 9 to show them that the forgiveness of their sins is directly connected to the promise of the New Covenant, which is the promise that Jer 31 is talking about.
Heb 9:15 ¶ And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
Oh also this shows that the New Covenant is in force today not some obscure time in the future.

This is Paul's version of the New Covenant;

Rom 11:27 For this [is] my covenant unto them (ISRAEL), when I shall take away their (ISRAEL) sins.

Rom 11:28 As concerning the gospel, [they are] (ISRAEL) enemies for your (GENTILES) sakes: but as touching the election, [they are] (ISRAEL) beloved for the fathers' sakes.
Here you have saved Gentiles, and saved Jews. In YOUR gospel there are no saved Gentiles because you believe the Gentiles become Israel. That's a problem because the Bible says no such thing. And you can't have saved Gentiles if everyone becomes Israel.
So what do we have? We have fiction.
Quote:
Why? "This do in remembrance of me"- we've been commanded to do so. But Jesus also said in the next 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.
But of course, you would like to ignore this verse, right?

No sir I do not ignore anything in scripture.
Acts 10:41 Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.
Christ did eat and drink new with them after His resurrection when he was given all authority in heaven and in earth. He was given the Kingdom at that time and those of us who believe are translated into that kingdom.

So just to be crystal clear here, it's your belief that Acts 10:41 is the fulfillment of Mat 26:29. That's what Jesus was talking about in Mat 26:29 according to your gospel, is that correct?

You know what is a mystery to me? I can't understand why Christ would want you to partake of the Lord's Supper speaking of the New Covenant when, as you say, the New Covenant is not for you. You believe that you are celebrating something that doesn't even pertain to the Church of Jesus Christ. It only pertains to the Jews. Why would He want His Church to remember and celebrate something that does not pertain to them?

You seem to be confused here. The Jews ARE a part of the church. As a matter of fact, if I'm not mistaken, the church was to the Jew first. The New Covenant does pertain to the church, as the Jews pertain to the church. Why is it a problem for you that we participate in the remembrance of our Savior?

You say that the blood of the New Covenant (1Cor 11:25) washes away your sins...

Err, you need to qualify that one, don't you think? That same blood washed away the sins under the Old Covenant (Hbr 9:15). Can you show a scripture that shows it washed away the sins under the New Covenant?

... even though, you believe that the New Covenant is only for the Jews. Is that not inconsistent? It seems that you really do not know why you are taking it, other than you were just told to.

You have ASOLUTELY NO SCRIPTURE which says the New Covenant is for Gentiles, yet you claim it as if the Bible lists it in every book, line upon line, precept upon precept. And you don't find that inconsistent? You want to take it with no scripture that says it belongs to you. And that's not inconsistent? Who you kiddin'?

Quote:
And you likewise see that Jesus shed His blood in fulfillment of the sins of the Old Covenant.

Yep I see that but I also see that His blood is the blood of the New Covenant. Isn't that what the Bible says?
Hebrews 9 says that the only way the New Covenant could go into effect was that the testor had to die, which happened at the Cross, where the blood of the New Covenant paid for my sins.

The Bible says "the blood of the New Covenant paid for (your) sins"? Hbr 9:15 says the sins of the Old Covenant are forgiven. Then it says, "they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance." Could you please tell me what that promise is that they are to wait to receive?
Quote:
Why don't you show the plain scripture(s) that says we're currently under the New Covenant, and that the New Covenant was given to Gentiles. On an issue of this importance, I'm sure you can list a page of scriptures. So let's see them.

See above.

I saw above. The answer is clearly not there. I even tell you why. That's why I keep asking.

Paul plainly connects the Church of Jesus Christ to the New Covenant is almost all of his epistles. You just have to take off your Dispensational blinders to see them.

You mean, you want me to pretend that the Emperor has new clothes? You haven't listed one scripture, NOT ONE! that says Gentiles are under the New Covenant. You keep alluding to this fictitious 'quantum leap' that somehow Gentiles become Israel.

To be continued...

 

[ddub85]

Continued...

Quote:
Isaac died under the Old Covenant, correct? So WHEN does/did he receive the New Covenant?

Quote:
You see those in the Old Covenant saints could not be made perfect until Christ's blood of the New Covenant was shed.
What scripture? Is this YOU speaking, or is it the Bible? If it's the Bible, then list the scripture.

I did but I will again. Heb 11:39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:
40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.
You know I really believe that you are not reading my posts very carefully because you keep asking me questions that I covered in my post.

I'm sorry I'm the one who has to break the news to you, but this scripture does not answer the question. WHAT promise did they not receive? You have decided it's the New covenant with no Bible that says so. So how is it that you come to this conclusion? Is it by your own logic, or by scripture?

Quote:
So yes you are right, we, as well as Isaac, are all under the New Covenant.
I never said such a thing, because the Bible never says such a thing. That is YOU talking, not the Bible.

Excuse me you made the statement that we are under the same covenant as Isaac, so I just agreed with you. Do you even read what you write?

To qualify, THE BIBLE says we're under the same covenant as Isaac. I say that Isaac was under the Old Covenant if for no other reason he died before YOU say the New Covenant was in force. So he couldn't possibly be under the New Covenant. So how do you come to that conclusion?

Quote:
What I see in CT theology is a myth beginning with the 'quantum leap' that they have become Israel, replacing God's Israel, and have laid claim to all that God has given to Israel. All of this done without scripture. That myth ALONE collapses CT from it's inception because there is no biblical support for such a thing.

Since you said that apparently you believe that the Dispy can give scripture for what they believe.

Excuse me, but that would be a total change of subject, and would be a different forum. You seem to be avoiding the question rather than answering it. could you address the point please?

I would love for you to give me the scripture for beliefs such as a premillenial rapture or a 2000 year gap between the 69th and 70th week of Daniel or scripture proving that the New Covenant isn't in effect today. Why don't you provide scripture for those? You can't because it ain't there. They are figments of the Dispy imagination.

I would love to answer those concerns for you. If you have a forum where you're discussing this, or would like to start one, I'd love to join you in the discussion. But this is a different subject matter.

God Bless!

 

[GLJCA]

@ GLJCA
See, this is one of the problems with CTers. Paul, nor the writer of Hebrews, said Jer 31:34 was for Gentiles. Second, neither even hinted Jer 31:34 was for Gentiles. Of course it's part of the church because Israel is a part of the church. But it's not for Gentiles, and the Bible never says that it is. That would be the point.
Consider this FACT. The Bible says Gentiles are felowheirs, meaning we are to receive what we've been assigned/allotted. The Bible allots to us this one promise;
Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, [saying], In thee shall all nations be blessed.
Paul ties us directly to this single promise, which is an Old Covenant promise. We are directly tied to the Old covenant. See that? Undeniable. Also, we're not tied to any other promises. There is no tie for us Gentiles to Jer 31:34.
Furthermore, Paul consistently says PROMISE (singular) when speaking of us Gentiles, and PROMISES (plural) when speaking to the Jews. I know you think there is no difference between promise and promises, and you wish to totally ignore my example of Holy Spirit vs. Holy Spirits. The main point is that it's important because Paul makes it important. There's a REASON Paul says promise about us Gentiles, and promises when speaking of the Jews. There's a REASON Paul tells us we receive what we've been allotted, and shows us what we've been allotted. So what do we have in just this one point?
1) Jer 31:34 tied to the church through Israel ONLY, not through Gentiles.
2) Gentiles are fellowheirs, receiving what we've been allotted.
3) Gentiles have been allotted the one promise listed in Gal 3:8.
4) The single promise we've been allotted is an Old Covenant promise, NOT a New Covenant promise.

DDUB,

I can hardly believe that you can't see that Jesus Christ was the provision for the promise of the New Covenant given in Jer 31. Jesus himself said that His blood was the blood of the New Covenant. The New Covenant was promised in the Old Covenant to Israel, yes but they rejected it so that the Gentiles could enter into it. That is what Romans 11 is saying.
Rom 11:11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
This didn't take God by surprise, it was His plan all along.
Acts 15:14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

Look again at Jer. 31. What was God promising Israel? The New Covenant.

Was the shed blood of Christ not the blood of the New Covenant?

Don't you not point to the blood of the New Covenant as the blood that washed away your sins?

1) Jer 31:34 tied to the church through Israel ONLY, not through Gentiles.

So you are saying that the Church is appropriating the promises of Jer 31 but only through the Jews.
Why are you making a difference between the Jew and Gentile when Paul nor God does?
Ro 10:12 ¶ For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
Apparently Paul didn't know what you know.

Your argument is really reaching and doesn't make sense if you would just think about it. You are saying that we Gentiles are not tied to the promise of the New Covenant but we get the blessings of the New Covenant because of the Jews who are in the Church. If what you are saying is true then it is the Jews in the Church that receive forgiveness of their sins not you, because you have no tie to Jer. 31.

Quote:

The Gentiles who are Christ's are tied to Jer 31 by virtue of their relationship to Christ.

You make this statement with absolutely NO scripture which says such a thing. The Bible consistently says, Old and New Testament, that Jer 31 is to and for Israel and Judah. That would EXCLUDE Gentiles. You seem to be arguing that this would include Gentiles, as Gentiles are Israel ACCORDING TO YOU, not according to the Bible. It seems this entire argument comes down to you proving this 'quantum leap', this amazing transformation of Gentiles to Jews.
If we Gentiles become Israel when saved, then there are no saved Gentiles. That would be nonbiblical.

If Dispys would not skip the New Testament when it comes to Old Testament prophecy they would see that the writers of the New Testament saw the fulfillment of the OT prophecy in the Church of Jesus Christ. In Romans 11 we were grafted into the olive tree, which is Covenant Israel. Look it up!! Throughout the OT God used the olive tree to describe Israel. I have shown you the scriptures. When we were grafted into it we became as much a part of Israel as Isaac was. Why would that not be a exciting factor for you as a Gentile to know that you, because of your relationship with Christ are now become a part of Israel recieving the promises of God to them? Paul plainly brings that out in Gal. 3 & 4. No, they are not OT scriptures, they are NT scriptures showing the fulfillment of OT prophecy in the New Testament Church of Jesus Christ. All of the blessings you enjoy today you have stolen from the promises of God to Israel if they are not for you. That makes you a wolf not one of God's sheep.

This is not a quantum leap but it is reading the whole canon of God not wrongly dividing it into segments that make no sense. CTers see the Bible as a seamless garment not a patchwork quilt like Dispys do.

You have no right to call God, your God.
You have no right to say that you are one of God's people.
You have no right to say that your sins are forgiven.
You have no right to say that the Word of God is written in your heart.
All these were promises not given to you but you have apparently stolen them from Israel.

Even if you say that you are tied to the promises because of the Jews in the church does not explain how you personally can claim forgiveness of sins. You are really running around the subject.

Quote:

Either that are you are trying so hard to prove me wrong you are missing it. The New Testament is the fulfillment of the Old Covenant promises and they are being fulfilled in the Church of Jesus Christ.

True. But we Gentiles have what we've been allotted, not whatever we may want or claim.

So if the only promise that was given to Abraham was the promise of eternal life through faith and that is all that we as Christians can claim how are you claiming forgiveness of sins?

How can you have eternal life without appropriating the promise of forgiveness of sins? There is no way around it, if what you are saying is true then you are lost in your sins and God will remember your sins forever.

You know as well as I know that promise and promises are two different words. For you to argue they're not is utterly ridiculous.

How can you say that the word promises are only for the Jews and the word promise is only for the Gentiles?
Was Paul addressing Jews here? NO the letter was written to a Gentile Church who were being bombarded from the Judizers, who were telling them that they needed to follow the ceremonial law to be saved. Paul was correcting that error.
Let's look at it again.
Gal 3:14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. Here Paul says that these Gentiles, as the heirs of Christ, receive the promise of the Holy Spirit through faith. What does that mean? Can one have eternal life through faith without the forgiveness of sins? Where does that come in?
15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
Here in the next two scriptures Paul is showing that the promise and/or promises are connected to the Covenant given to Israel. Paul is telling the Galatian Gentile Church that the promise of the Spirit through faith comes to them through Jesus Christ. He goes on to say that the promises of the SAME COVENANT were given to Abraham and his seed, which is Christ.
29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Then he tells them that if they, the Gentiles that the letter was addressed to, are Christ's then they are Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise of the Abrahamic Covenant. What was promised in the Abrahamic Covenant? Was the promise of the Spirit through faith the only promise of the Abrahamic Covenant?
He was telling them that they, by virtue of their relationship with Christ, are heirs to the promises of the New Covenant. The same promises that were given to Abraham and Christ were given to us because we are joint-heirs with Him.
Ro 8:17 ¶ And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
I do not differentiate between the Jew and the Gentile the way you do because God doesn't.

I have to leave because I have a tee time in 30 minutes. I will try to get back to the rest of your comments later. I don't have time to correct any grammatical or spelling errors so I ask your indulgence.

GLJCA

 

[GLJCA]

Continued...

I'm sorry I'm the one who has to break the news to you, but this scripture does not answer the question. WHAT promise did they not receive? You have decided it's the New covenant with no Bible that says so. So how is it that you come to this conclusion? Is it by your own logic, or by scripture?

Context my friend, context. Context is what tells me that the OT saints received the promise of the New Covenant.
Heb 11: 8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.
9 By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:
10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.

Abraham dwelt in the land that God gave him but he dwelt in tents because he knew what the Dispy doesn't know, that God had much more than a little sliver of land in the middle East in store for him.
Ro 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
When was Abraham promised the world? Apparently Paul realized that Abraham was promised the world not just a little sliver of land in the Middle East.
If Abraham was promised the world why are Dispys just giving him that little sliver of land in the Middle East? It is because the Dispy doesn't look at the New Testament as the fulfillment of the OT prophecy.

What city was it that Abraham looked for? The Heavenly Jerusalem (Rev 21).
What city is the Church of Jesus Christ? The Heavenly Jerusalem.
Heb 12:22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
The church has foundations and isn't the Church's builder and maker, God?
Eph 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
CTers put 2 and 2 together to make four. The Dispy can't do that because they believe that the 2s are in different dispensations therefore they can't go together, even though the Bible plainly puts them together. 2+2=4

You asked when Isaac could have received the New Covenant?
When Christ was crucified the Bible tells us that before he ascended to be seated on His throne, he descended into the lower parts of the earth. At that time I believe that Christ preached to those who were in Abraham's bosum and lead them, (captivity captive) up to heaven to be with God.
Eph 4:8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.
9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?
10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)
At that time Jesus presented himself to the OT saints who looked for their Messiah. There were many of them who came out of their graves at the resurrection.
Mt 27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
His blood of the New Covenant was offered for them also.

To believe that the blood of the New Covenant was not offered to the OT saint is to believe that the saints of the OT are lost and in Hell today. Is that what you believe? No one can enter into heaven without the blood of Christ covering his sins.

If the OT saints had to be saved through keeping the law, like Dispys believe, then according to Paul no one in the OT was saved. No one could possibly have gone to Heaven. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, Rahab, all the OT prophets are all in Hell today because no one can be justified by keeping the law.
Ga 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
The OT saint was saved by his faith in the coming Messiah not by the works of the Law. Their faith brought about their works just as our's does today.

Err, you need to qualify that one, don't you think? That same blood washed away the sins under the Old Covenant (Hbr 9:15). Can you show a scripture that shows it washed away the sins under the New Covenant?

You must be kidding!!! If Christ's blood does not wash away the sins under the New Covenant you have no hope. Jesus was obviously the provision of the promise given to Israel in Jer 31:31-35. His blood is the blood of the New Covenant, which was promised to Israel. Jesus is the mediator of the New Covenant as you brought out in Heb 9:15, which may I add was written to Christians. Paul also brings out that Jesus is the Mediator between God and man in 1Tim 2:5, who may I add was not a Jew because his father was a Greek. He is speaking to Timothy who was not a Jew but was a part of the Church of Jesus Christ. What is Christ the mediator of? The New Covenant. 2+2=4

I have shown you this scripture before but apparently you didn't read it very carefully.
Heb 12: 22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.
When we come to Christ in faith we have also come to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem. We come to the general assembly and the church of the firstborn of which Jesus is the mediator of the New Covenant. Verse 24 shows conclusively that the blood of Jesus is answering for those in the New Covenant Church of Jesus Christ. 2+2=4

So just to be crystal clear here, it's your belief that Acts 10:41 is the fulfillment of Mat 26:29. That's what Jesus was talking about in Mat 26:29 according to your gospel, is that correct?

How can I not have been clear about this? After Jesus was crucified and resurrected He was given authority over heaven and earth (Matt 28:18) and at that time He was given His kingdom. Peter preached this in Acts 2.
Acts 2:29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.
30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool.
36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
How could it get plainer? Peter preached to the Jews that David's prophecy of Christ being raised up from the dead to be seated on his throne had already happened. At the resurrection Christ was given David's throne where He will be seated until all His enemies are made His footstool.(Psa 110:1, Mt 22:44, Mr 12:36, Lu 20:43, Ac 2:35, Heb 1:13, Heb 10:13) Psa 110:1 is the most requoted scripture in the Bible.
His kingdom is where we are translated when we believe.
Col 1:13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
Notice that "hath delivered and hath translated" is in the past tense not future. If Christ would not be given the kingdom until a future time why would Paul use the past tense.

After Christ was resurrected he ate and drank with His disciples in His kingdom and I eat and drink with Him every time I partake of the Lord's Supper. Now is that clearer?

GLJCA

 

[ddub85]

@ GLJCA

1) Jer 31:34 tied to the church through Israel ONLY, not through Gentiles.
2) Gentiles are fellowheirs, receiving what we've been allotted.
3) Gentiles have been allotted the one promise listed in Gal 3:8.
4) The single promise we've been allotted is an Old Covenant promise, NOT a New Covenant promise.

DDUB,
I can hardly believe that you can't see that Jesus Christ was the provision for the promise of the New Covenant given in Jer 31.

I do see Jesus as the provision for the promise of the New Covenant. I can't believe you continue to forget that He is also the provision for the Old Covenant, the one Isaac is under, the one that Paul tells includes the promise of salvation for us Gentiles.

Jesus himself said that His blood was the blood of the New Covenant. The New Covenant was promised in the Old Covenant to Israel, yes but they rejected it so that the Gentiles could enter into it. That is what Romans 11 is saying.

They rejected it? It doesn't matter what they reject. It doesn't matter what they do, this is about what God will do. He tells you over and over that He will keep a remnant, and they will do. There is no rejection, God will do as He sayss He will, and will do it through Israel.

Rom 11:11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
This didn't take God by surprise, it was His plan all along.

Yes, it was. But how do you tie this to the New Covenant? Saying this sure doesn't do it.

Acts 15:14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

All of which says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about Gentiles being under the New Covenant. ?????

Look again at Jer. 31. What was God promising Israel? The New Covenant.

Correct. Promising ISRAEL, not Gentiles.

Was the shed blood of Christ not the blood of the New Covenant?

Yes. Was it also shed for the Old Covenant? The one which includes Gentiles? The one that was obtained? Yes.

Don't you not point to the blood of the New Covenant as the blood that washed away your sins?

No. Why would I? The Bible NEVER says the New Covenant washed away anybody's sins. Gentiles aren't even promised the New Covenant. It's only given to Israel in the Bible. Are you Israel? If so, what scripture says it? Where is it written? Notice that you have NO DIRECT SCRIPTURE which calls us Gentiles Israel.
Also, if we Gentiles are Israel, that would mean that ALL saved people are Jewish, as Israel is Jewish. So you believe that ALL saved people must be Israel, and Jewish??? Where is that in the Bible? There are no saved Gentiles? Can't you see that this is ridiculous?
Quote:
1) Jer 31:34 tied to the church through Israel ONLY, not through Gentiles.

So you are saying that the Church is appropriating the promises of Jer 31 but only through the Jews.

No, I'm saying that the Jews are appropriating the promises of Jer 31, and they (those that accept Christ, the remnant), are in the church.

Why are you making a difference between the Jew and Gentile when Paul nor God does?
Ro 10:12 ¶ For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

There is no difference as it pertains to salvation. There is no difference "ACCORDING TO THE PROMISE". The single promise. You conveniently leave out the fact that the statement you quote is always tied to that promise.

Apparently Paul didn't know what you know.

Paul knew. Paul is the one who said "according to the (single) promise", and always tied the statement to salvation. Apparently YOU are the one who doesn't know.d

Your argument is really reaching and doesn't make sense if you would just think about it. You are saying that we Gentiles are not tied to the promise of the New Covenant but we get the blessings of the New Covenant because of the Jews who are in the Church.

Obviously you're not listening to what I'm saying. Listen... WE DON'T get the blessings of the New Covenant. We are not given the New Covenant period. Got it?
We are given the Old Covenant promise of salvation (Gal 3:8). We are included in that promise, and we have been grafted into this covenant under this promise. THAT is what I'm saying.

If what you are saying is true then it is the Jews in the Church that receive forgiveness of their sins not you, because you have no tie to Jer. 31.

Quote:
Quote:
The Gentiles who are Christ's are tied to Jer 31 by virtue of their relationship to Christ.
You make this statement with absolutely NO scripture which says such a thing. The Bible consistently says, Old and New Testament, that Jer 31 is to and for Israel and Judah. That would EXCLUDE Gentiles. You seem to be arguing that this would include Gentiles, as Gentiles are Israel ACCORDING TO YOU, not according to the Bible. It seems this entire argument comes down to you proving this 'quantum leap', this amazing transformation of Gentiles to Jews.
If we Gentiles become Israel when saved, then there are no saved Gentiles. That would be nonbiblical.

If Dispys would not skip the New Testament when it comes to Old Testament prophecy they would see that the writers of the New Testament saw the fulfillment of the OT prophecy in the Church of Jesus Christ. In Romans 11 we were grafted into the olive tree, which is Covenant Israel. Look it up!! Throughout the OT God used the olive tree to describe Israel. I have shown you the scriptures. When we were grafted into it we became as much a part of Israel as Isaac was.

If CTers would accept what Paul says, and stop taking only bits and pieces of his statements and squeezing them together to make a new gospel, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Paul tells us specifically what we Gentiles have been grafted into. The family of God, salvation, the promise that all nations will be blessed. ALL that we could ever want or need. But YOU have decided that's not enough for you, and YOU have laid claim on all of the promises made to Israel. Those promises that don't help you, nor pertain to you.

Why would that not be a exciting factor for you as a Gentile to know that you, because of your relationship with Christ are now become a part of Israel recieving the promises of God to them?

Well, for beginners, it's not true. The Bible never says we become a part of Israel. We become a part of Christ, NOT a part of Israel. Do you have ANY scriptures that say you become Israel? Of course not. A part of Christ, a part of the church. NOT a part of Israel. That is what YOU claim, not what the Bible says.

Paul plainly brings that out in Gal. 3 & 4. No, they are not OT scriptures, they are NT scriptures showing the fulfillment of OT prophecy in the New Testament Church of Jesus Christ. All of the blessings you enjoy today you have stolen from the promises of God to Israel if they are not for you. That makes you a wolf not one of God's sheep.

You are attempting to steal an identity that God never gave to you. You're NOT Israel if you are a Gentile. The Bible never says you are, but YOU have insisted that you are over the word of God. But you call me a wolf? Take off the sheep's clothing.
I don't need to "steal" anything as God has blessed me with the blessing that He allotted us Gentiles with, and I have no need for any other promise. That blessing gives me more than I could ever need because He gives me Christ. He gives me... Him. No one could have more.

This is not a quantum leap but it is reading the whole canon of God not wrongly dividing it into segments that make no sense. CTers see the Bible as a seamless garment not a patchwork quilt like Dispys do.

Then why are you patching yourself into Israel when the Bible NEVER says such a thing?
The 'quantum leap' is you CTers deciding that you are Israel, and the bible NEVER saying that you are. You have made yourselves Israel, and the Bible never concurs such a thing. You say, "If you read this, and add that, you will then see we are all Israel." That is just silliness. Don't you think if we were Israel, that God would say so plainly, and very often? It would be stated line upon line, precept upon precept. Instead, the Bible clearly says the opposite. It plainly says that we Gentiles are saved as Gentiles, and included in the family of God as Gentiles. Everyone in Christ doesn't have to be Israel, which would make us all Jewish. God is no respecter of persons. He loves us as the Gentiles He created us just as much as He loves the Jews. Be who you are, be who God made you. His love is universal. Why not just take Him at His word?

You have no right to call God, your God.
You have no right to say that you are one of God's people.
You have no right to say that your sins are forgiven.
You have no right to say that the Word of God is written in your heart.
All these were promises not given to you but you have apparently stolen them from Israel.

What are you even talking about? God has given these things to ALL who come to Christ. These things are not exclusive to Israel. You don't have to make yourself Israel in order to have these things. God has provided all of us with these things, and made the promise all the way back at Gen 12:3 to Abraham. Paul tells you that.

Even if you say that you are tied to the promises because of the Jews in the church does not explain how you personally can claim forgiveness of sins. You are really running around the subject.

Don't you know that when you accept Christ your sins are forgiven? We have Christ under the promise given to us! CHRIST DIED FOR THE SINS OF ALL IN HIM!
Hello???!!!???

To be continued...

 

[ddub85]

Continued...

Quote:
Quote:
Either that are you are trying so hard to prove me wrong you are missing it. The New Testament is the fulfillment of the Old Covenant promises and they are being fulfilled in the Church of Jesus Christ.

True. But we Gentiles have what we've been allotted, not whatever we may want or claim.

So if the only promise that was given to Abraham was the promise of eternal life through faith and that is all that we as Christians can claim how are you claiming forgiveness of sins?

You seem to be totally confused. That wasn't the only promise to Abraham, not even in Gen 12:1-3.
Under the promise given to us, we receive Christ. That gives us the Father as our Father. We are in the family of God, with forgiveness of sins, eternal life with God, we are new creatures, we have heaven, eternal peace, the Holy Spirit,...
Need I say more? What more do you want? What more could you possibly have?

How can you have eternal life without appropriating the promise of forgiveness of sins? There is no way around it, if what you are saying is true then you are lost in your sins and God will remember your sins forever.

What makes you think you can only have forgiveness of sins in the New Covenant? Not one Old Testament saint was under the New Covenant, and all of their sins are forgiven;
Hbr 9:15; "...that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions [that were] under the first testament,..."

The promise given was under the Old Covenant.
Grace came under the Old Covenant.
Forgiveness of sins were under the Old Covenant.
Old Covenant sins are washed away.
The Bible doesn't say one thing HAS COME under the New Covenant. It speaks about what WILL COME under the New Covenant, but says not one thing about what HAS COME under the New Covenant. When you add it all up, it ain't even close!
Quote:
You know as well as I know that promise and promises are two different words. For you to argue they're not is utterly ridiculous.

How can you say that the word promises are only for the Jews and the word promise is only for the Gentiles?

I don't say it. The Bible says it over and over and over again. Show me WITH SCRIPTURE where we Gentiles have been given promises. Notice that you list NO SCRIPTURE that says otherwise. I can show you over and over and over again where the Bible says PROMISE when speaking of us. So show me the scripture(s) that say promises. (I probably won't even get a response to this one).

Was Paul addressing Jews here? NO the letter was written to a Gentile Church who were being bombarded from the Judizers, who were telling them that they needed to follow the ceremonial law to be saved. Paul was correcting that error.
Let's look at it again.
Gal 3:14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Blessing (singular). Promise (singular). See those words in the verse? They reiterate the fact that Paul is speaking of a singular promise. How do we know for sure?
Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, [saying], In thee shall all nations be blessed.
You have to stop ignoring this fact just because it does great damage to the theology you (CTers) have created. Begin to believe in the Bible, the word of God.

Here Paul says that these Gentiles, as the heirs of Christ, receive the promise of the Holy Spirit through faith. What does that mean?

It means we are saved by God as He has always promised.

Can one have eternal life through faith without the forgiveness of sins?

No.

Where does that come in?

In the Old Covenant. That's what Paul is telling you. The more exciellent ministry is grace through faith, which includes forgiveness of sins. That came in the Old Covenant promise.

15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
Here in the next two scriptures Paul is showing that the promise and/or promises are connected to the Covenant given to Israel. Paul is telling the Galatian Gentile Church that the promise of the Spirit through faith comes to them through Jesus Christ. He goes on to say that the promises of the SAME COVENANT were given to Abraham and his seed, which is Christ.
29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Then he tells them that if they, the Gentiles that the letter was addressed to, are Christ's then they are Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise of the Abrahamic Covenant. What was promised in the Abrahamic Covenant? Was the promise of the Spirit through faith the only promise of the Abrahamic Covenant?
He was telling them that they, by virtue of their relationship with Christ, are heirs to the promises of the New Covenant.

Then why are YOU saying it? Why not list the scripture which says it? Notice that you say PROMISES, but all the scriptures you list say PROMISE when speaking of Gentiles. Why is that? And look at v 29- "HEIRS ACCORDING TO THE PROMISE", not promises (plural), as YOU have stated. See that?

The same promises that were given to Abraham and Christ were given to us because we are joint-heirs with Him.

Now you have resorted to misquoting the Bible, not telling the truth. We are joint-heirs, and partakers of the PROMISE (singular), NOT promises (plural) as you have stated. Do you know what a joint-heir is? Why is Paul calling us joint-heirs? Better do some research.

Ro 8:17 ¶ And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
I do not differentiate between the Jew and the Gentile the way you do because God doesn't.

I only differentiate where God does. God says promise, you say promises. God says we're Gentiles, you say we become Israel. That would be differentiating where God doesn't.

I have to leave because I have a tee time in 30 minutes. I will try to get back to the rest of your comments later. I don't have time to correct any grammatical or spelling errors so I ask your indulgence.

Hit 'em straight! Don't worry about the grammar or spelling. I understand what you're saying.

God Bless!

 

[GLJCA]

@ GLJCA

I do see Jesus as the provision for the promise of the New Covenant. I can't believe you continue to forget that He is also the provision for the Old Covenant, the one Isaac is under, the one that Paul tells includes the promise of salvation for us Gentiles.

The Old Covenant does not promise salvation for us Gentiles. You are saying things that you can't prove please show me scripture? I thought Dispys say that there is no reference to the Church in the OT.

Then you said.

Under the promise given to us, we receive Christ. That gives us the Father as our Father. We are in the family of God, with forgiveness of sins, eternal life with God, we are new creatures, we have heaven, eternal peace, the Holy Spirit,...
Need I say more? What more do you want? What more could you possibly have?

You are talking in circles here. Under what promise do we receive Christ? Christ is the provision of the promise that God gave the Jews in Jer 31:31-35, not you. You have no right to claim to be God's child if you are not under the New Covenant.

The Old Covenant had no provision for salvation until Christ shed the blood of the New Covenant. When Christ was crucified the New Covenant came into effect. The only way that any testament can come into effect is through the death of the testor.The New Covenant was ratified upon the death of the testor, Jesus Christ. The word for covenant and testament is the same word. They are not talking about two different things.
Heb 9:15 ¶ And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
If you would read the verse that you yourself presented you would see that Jesus is the mediator of the New Testament or Covenant not the Old. This New Covenant covers the redemption of the transgressions in the Old Testament plus they which are called from now on.
He goes on to say in verse 20 referring to verse 15.
20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.
Who is the writer talking to? Christians!

Here is another reference that apparently you have missed in forming this belief.
Heb 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
What did Christ do away with? The Old Covenant so that He could establish the New Covenant.
Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
Christ came to establish the New Covenant so that Jew and Gentile alike could be saved. It was not an after thought to save the Gentiles that has always been in God's mind but there was no provision for it in the OT. Christ is the provision for the salvation of the Gentiles and it comes through the blood of the New Covenant.

It is through the New Covenant that we have salvation not the Old.
Show me in the Old Covenant where we Gentiles have forgiveness of sins? It isn't there. It only came through the Christ's blood of the New Covenant. You have no provision other than that. If you are not under the New Covenant you are lost in your sins.

I have to go to bed now but I will be at work tonight to finish answering the rest of your comments.

GLJCA

 

[ddub85]

@ GLJCA

I do see Jesus as the provision for the promise of the New Covenant. I can't believe you continue to forget that He is also the provision for the Old Covenant, the one Isaac is under, the one that Paul tells includes the promise of salvation for us Gentiles.

The Old Covenant does not promise salvation for us Gentiles. You are saying things that you can't prove please show me scripture? I thought Dispys say that there is no reference to the Church in the OT.

"O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, Are ye so foolish?"- Gal 3:1-3.
Gal 3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
Gal 3:7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, [saying], In thee shall all nations be blessed.
Gal 3:9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

This is the Old Covenant promise of salvation to us Gentiles. Just as Abraham was saved by grace through faith, that promise was given to us Gentiles in Gen 12:3 when God said, "In thee shall all nations be blessed."
There you have it, directly from the apostle Paul, written in scripture. Need I say more? And this isn't a reference to the church, it's a reference to Gentiles, who are a part of the church.

Then you said.
Quote:
Under the promise given to us, we receive Christ. That gives us the Father as our Father. We are in the family of God, with forgiveness of sins, eternal life with God, we are new creatures, we have heaven, eternal peace, the Holy Spirit,...
Need I say more? What more do you want? What more could you possibly have?

You are talking in circles here. Under what promise do we receive Christ? Christ is the provision of the promise that God gave the Jews in Jer 31:31-35, not you. You have no right to claim to be God's child if you are not under the New Covenant.

Just read above. The promise of Christ was given to us Gentiles in the OLD COVENANT, in Gen 12:3. Paul makes that very clear over and over again.
However, there are NO SCRIPTURES that say we Gentiles are saved by Jer 31, or that the New Covenant is even given to us. But you hang your entire salvation on something the Bible doesn't even say? Does that even make sense? Utterly ridiculous.

The Old Covenant had no provision for salvation until Christ shed the blood of the New Covenant.

I keep telling you, but you refuse to hear. The way to salvation for us Gentiles was given in Gen 12:3, and ratified in Gen 15. When Christ' blood was shed, He OBTAINED a more excellent ministry, making the covenant already in place more excellent, providing salvation for us Gentiles under the Old Covenant as promised, with His blood. The Bible says NOTHING about salvation for us under the New Covenant, however.

When Christ was crucified the New Covenant came into effect.

Fine. What scripture says so? If you can't list a scripture that says so, I think you should stop saying it. There is no truth to the statement. It is only your opinion. Besides, I thought you said the New Covenant came into effect at the last supper?

The only way that any testament can come into effect is through the death of the testor.The New Covenant was ratified upon the death of the testor, Jesus Christ.

Ratification and coming into effect are two different things. I can ratify the circus in March, but it may not come into effect until July.

The word for covenant and testament is the same word. They are not talking about two different things.

I agree. Your point would be?

Heb 9:15 ¶ And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
If you would read the verse that you yourself presented you would see that Jesus is the mediator of the New Testament or Covenant not the Old.

Not the old? You'd better read more closely.
"...that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions [that were] under the first testament,".
First testament = Old Covenant. Didn't you just say that covenant and testament are the same word? What do you think the first testament is?

This New Covenant covers the redemption of the transgressions in the Old Testament plus they which are called from now on.

Is that what YOU say, or what the Bible says? If it's what the Bible says, then list the scripture. If not, then list it as your opinion, and not as if it's biblical.

He goes on to say in verse 20 referring to verse 15.

Referring to v. 15? So do we just ignore all of the references to the Old Covenant between vv. 15-20? Is that what we do?

20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.
Who is the writer talking to? Christians!

The writer is obviously talking about the Hebrews who were with Moses.

Here is another reference that apparently you have missed in forming this belief.
Heb 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
What did Christ do away with? The Old Covenant so that He could establish the New Covenant.

That would be incorrect. Here the writer is comparing law to grace. The first is the law, and the second is grace. He isn't comparing the Old Covenant to the New Covenant.

Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
Christ came to establish the New Covenant so that Jew and Gentile alike could be saved.

Again, you're listing your opinion, and not what the Bible says. This verse says "READY" to vanish. Tht means it's still here! If my car is old and decaying, and ready to vanish, can I still drive it? YES! It's not gone, it's still in operation. This verse is saying that at the time of this writitng, the Old Covenant was still in place, and the New Covenant was not.

It was not an after thought to save the Gentiles that has always been in God's mind but there was no provision for it in the OT.

Paul disagrees with you (Gal 3:8, Rom 4:13-17,...).

Christ is the provision for the salvation of the Gentiles and it comes through the blood of the New Covenant.

Again, notice that you have listed NO SCRIPTURE that says such a thing. Salvation came under the Old Covenant, redemption of sins came under the Old Covenant. SCRIPTURE says so, not opinion. Recognize the difference.

It is through the New Covenant that we have salvation not the Old.
Show me in the Old Covenant where we Gentiles have forgiveness of sins? It isn't there. It only came through the Christ's blood of the New Covenant. You have no provision other than that. If you are not under the New Covenant you are lost in your sins.

Don't you find it a bit strange that there are NO SCRIPTURES that say you're under the New Covenant? NO SCRIPTURES that say the New Covenant is for Gentiles? NO SCRIPTURES that say forgiveness of sins is under the New Covenant only? Yet... you are espousing these things as if they're written all over the Bible? You're not speaking Bible, you're speaking your opinion.

I have to go to bed now but I will be at work tonight to finish answering the rest of your comments.

Sleep on some of the theings being said.

God Bless!

 

[PeterAV]

This IS NOT what the Bible says. Let's look at what the Bible REALLY says;

Rom 9:6 ¶ Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they [are] not all Israel, which are of Israel:

"THEY"... who is they? "They" are Israel, which EXCLUDES Gentiles from the statement. Now, do you see where it says "OF" Israel? The ONLY people "OF" Israel are those born of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. That EXCLUDES Gentiles.
So... YOU are attempting to include Gentiles where the Bible clearly excludes Gentiles from being Israel.

SAY WHAT?

Rom 9:7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, [are they] all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

Clearly, being born of Abraham DOES NOT make one Israel. If you are born of Abraham ONLY, then you are eliminated from being Israel by this verse.

YOU JUST CONTRADICTED YOURSELF.

Rom 9:8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these [are] not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

So WHO are the children of the flesh? Those born of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Who are the children of the promise who are counted for the seed in this context? Those born of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who have accepted Christ.
This has nothing to do with Gentiles, but YOU attempt to include Gentiles in the statement.

*******
That is so twisted,that I am laughing and tied up in knots!
Anything to get dispensationalism as your god.

PeterAV
Every word of God is pure:

 

[ddub85]

@ PeterAV

If it's so twisted, why don't you correct it all, and state your position? Are you Israel? Are you a 'quantum leaper'???

God Bless!

 

[GLJCA]

I said, The Old Covenant does not promise salvation for us Gentiles. You are saying things that you can't prove please show me scripture? I thought Dispys say that there is no reference to the Church in the OT. "O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, Are ye so foolish?"- Gal 3:1-3.
Gal 3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
Gal 3:7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, [saying], In thee shall all nations be blessed.
Gal 3:9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

DDUB,

I am so sorry I did not realize that the book of Galatians was Old Testament. I asked for an Old Covenant scripture that promises salvation to the Gentiles. Since Galatians was written after the death of the testor, Christ, I thought that it was in the New Testament. In actuality there is no scripture in the Old Covenant saying that salvation is anywhere but in Israel.
Jhn 4:22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
Nowhere can you find one scripture promising salvation to the Gentiles apart from the New Covenant blood of Christ. To even try is ludicrous. The New Covenant was ratified upon the death of the testor, Christ. You have to deny the majority of the New Testament writings to deny that the New Covenant is in effect today.

Besides Galatians is telling the Gentiles that they are Abraham's seed and heirs of the promise given to Christ, with whom we are joint-heirs.
I would like for you to show me scripture proving that we are not heirs to all of the promises given to Abraham and his seed, Christ? You are assuming it but you have no scripture that says that. Since you are so convinced of this there should be at least one scripture that plainly says that the Gentiles don't get any of the other promises. There isn't any. It is because we are heirs to all of the promises given to Christ not just one of them.

We are heirs to the promise of the forgiveness of sins found in Jer 31 otherwise you are lost in your sin.

We are heirs to the promise that God is our God found in Jer 31, otherwise you have no right to say that God is your God.

Paul tells the Roman church that as branches they are grafted into the same olive tree that believing Israel occupies today making them one with Israel and they partake of the root and the fatness of the olive tree. What is the root and fatness of the olive tree? It is Christ and the covenantal blessings and promises of Israel.
Rom 11:17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;

Paul tells the church in Ephesus that at one time they were aliens to Israel but now are made one with them because of the blood of Christ.
Eph 2:11-14 Wherefore remember, that ye [being] in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition [between us];Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, [even] the law of commandments [contained] in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, [so] making peace;And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
Paul again here tells this Gentile church, who was also one of the Churches of Asia Minor in Revelation, that they were once aliens from the commonwealth of Israel but now because of the blood of Christ, they are one with Israel. The Gentiles and the Jews are one in Christ because of the New Covenant blood of Christ. Since we are one with Israel in the olive tree then all of the promises are our's also. If not, show me a scripture proving your stand? So far you have said that it isn't true but you have yet to come across with one scripture saying definitely that Gentiles do not have more than one promise.

GLJCA

 

[GLJCA]

I keep telling you, but you refuse to hear. The way to salvation for us Gentiles was given in Gen 12:3, and ratified in Gen 15. When Christ' blood was shed, He OBTAINED a more excellent ministry, making the covenant already in place more excellent, providing salvation for us Gentiles under the Old Covenant as promised, with His blood. The Bible says NOTHING about salvation for us under the New Covenant, however.

How is it that you say that the covenant in place became more excellent when the Bible said that it was done away with? HMMM, now which one should I believe?
Hbr 8:13 In that he saith, A new [covenant], he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old [is] ready to vanish away.
That doesn't sound like to me that the old is more excellent. It sounds like to me that it is decayed and old and is vanishing away. What a difference in what you have said and what the Bible says.

I made the statement that when Christ died the New Covenant came into effect. You said,

Fine. What scripture says so? If you can't list a scripture that says so, I think you should stop saying it. There is no truth to the statement. It is only your opinion. Besides, I thought you said the New Covenant came into effect at the last supper?

First I never said that the New Covenant came into effect at the last Supper. You must have me confused with someone else. I showed you the same scripture that you presented earlier. It plainly brings out the fact that Jesus was the mediator of the New Testament by means of His death. It also brings out that a testament comes into effect upon the death of the testor.
Hbr 9:15-17 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions [that were] under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament [is], there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament [is] of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

How plain do you need it? That seems pretty plain to me. No testament can come into effect until after the death of the testor. Did Christ die? If He didn't then you would be correct in saying that the New Covenant is not in effect yet but since He died you don't have a leg to stand on.

Ratification and coming into effect are two different things. I can ratify the circus in March, but it may not come into effect until July.

You are sounding more and more desperate to find something to say. The scriptures above is speaking against you.

Not the old? You'd better read more closely.
"...that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions [that were] under the first testament,".
First testament = Old Covenant. Didn't you just say that covenant and testament are the same word? What do you think the first testament is?

I agree but I didn't quit reading there I kept on going. You see the Dispy has to take his proof scriptures out of context to make them work for him, I don't have to. I just take what the Word of God says at face value. The rest of that verse says, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
Paul says in Romans 8:30 that those who are saved are, what? Called. That verse not only shows redemption for the OT saint but also for the NT saint. I am listing the scriptures are you reading them? I am proving my stand which is a whole lot more than you are doing. All you are doing is disagreeing with what the scriptures I am presenting is saying.

Here is another reference that apparently you have missed in forming this belief.
Heb 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
What did Christ do away with? The Old Covenant so that He could establish the New Covenant.

But you said,

That would be incorrect. Here the writer is comparing law to grace. The first is the law, and the second is grace. He isn't comparing the Old Covenant to the New Covenant.

He taketh away the first testament which was by the law and brought in the second testament which was by grace. I am not saying this the writer of Hebrews did. He shows that by one sacrifice for sins Christ perfected forever them who are sanctified. In verse 15 the writer melds the two thoughts together and in verse 16 brings in the covenant promise made in Jer 31 into the context of the chapter. You must read the whole chapter in context DDUB. He shows that Law is Old Covenant and grace is New Covenant brought in by the New Covenant blood of Christ.

Again you must read the whole context of the chapter or else your interpretation will be incorrect, as I believe that it is.

GLJCA

 

[ddub85]

@ GLJCA

DDUB,
I am so sorry I did not realize that the book of Galatians was Old Testament.

And that is a big part of the problem. One book my friend. Line upon line, precept upon precept.

I asked for an Old Covenant scripture that promises salvation to the Gentiles. Since Galatians was written after the death of the testor, Christ, I thought that it was in the New Testament. In actuality there is no scripture in the Old Covenant saying that salvation is anywhere but in Israel.

Gen 12:3 "...and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed."
Right there you have an Old Covenant scripture that promises salvation to the Gentiles. How can we know for sure? Because the Bibile will ALWAYS tell us;

Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, [saying], In thee shall all nations be blessed.

See that? Let there be no doubt. Care to comment?

Jhn 4:22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
Nowhere can you find one scripture promising salvation to the Gentiles apart from the New Covenant blood of Christ. To even try is ludicrous. The New Covenant was ratified upon the death of the testor, Christ. You have to deny the majority of the New Testament writings to deny that the New Covenant is in effect today.

What Paul points out to you clearly is that the promise of salvation to Gentiles is an Old Covenant promise, made to Abraham in the first book of the Bible, the book of Genesis. You are totally incorrect ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE. Back to the drawing board.

Besides Galatians is telling the Gentiles that they are Abraham's seed and heirs of the promise given to Christ, with whom we are joint-heirs.

Very good. But I don't know how this helps your argument.

I would like for you to show me scripture proving that we are not heirs to all of the promises given to Abraham and his seed, Christ?

We Gentiles are not because the Bible tells us over and over and over again that we are heirs of the SINGLE PROMISE. Here you go;
Rom 4:13 For the promise (SINGULAR), that he should be the heir of the world, [was] not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
Rom 4:14 For if they which are of the law [be] heirs, faith is made void, and the promise (SINGULAR) made of none effect:
Rom 4:16 Therefore [it is] of faith, that [it might be] by grace; to the end the promise (SINGULAR) might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
Rom 9:8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these [are] not the children of God: but the children of the promise (SINGULAR) are counted for the seed.
Gal 3:14 That the blessing (SINGULAR) of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise (SINGULAR) of the Spirit through faith.
Gal 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise (SINGULAR).
Gal 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise (SINGULAR).
Eph 2:12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise (SINGULAR), having no hope, and without God in the world:
Eph 3:6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise (SINGULAR) in Christ by the gospel:

If you need even more, let me know.

You are assuming it but you have no scripture that says that.

I just listed MANY for you. Now let's see how many you list which say Gentiles receive promises.

Since you are so convinced of this there should be at least one scripture that plainly says that the Gentiles don't get any of the other promises. There isn't any. It is because we are heirs to all of the promises given to Christ not just one of them.

Then WHY does the Bible say we Gentiles are "HEIRS ACCORDING TO THE PROMISE" (SINGULAR)??? Do you have ANY scriptures which say we Gentiles are to receive promises? If not, then the argument is officially over and decided. I'll wait and see if you list ANY scriptures which say what you're saying. I just listed several. Let's see what you do.

We are heirs to the promise of the forgiveness of sins found in Jer 31 otherwise you are lost in your sin.

AGAIN, where does the Bible say such a thing? You can't just make soemthing up, then speak on it like the Bible says it. Where does the Bible say such a thing? IT DOESN'T. The Bible NEVER says Jer 31 is for Gentiles. NEVER. Prove me wrong. List the scritpure.

We are heirs to the promise that God is our God found in Jer 31, otherwise you have no right to say that God is your God.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but the Bible NEVER says we're heirs to Jer 31 or the New Covenant. Gen 12:3 and the Old Covenant? I can show it to you plainly in scripture, reiterated by Paul in the New Testament as true. I can show you that. However, you can't show what you're saying. Yet, you are sticking to your nonbiblical, man-made position. Doesn't that bother you even a little? Huh?

Paul tells the Roman church that as branches they are grafted into the same olive tree that believing Israel occupies today making them one with Israel and they partake of the root and the fatness of the olive tree.

What the Bible NEVER says, that you are saying, is that we Gentiles, when grafted in, BECOME ISRAEL. That is the 'quantum leap' you make, that the Bible validates NOWHERE. We are grafted into the promise as Gentiles, not as Israel.
If an Englishman adopts an Irish child, the Irish child doesn't all of a sudden become an Englishman. Even though he may be privy to all of the privileges of the Englishman, he's will still be Irish. Kapeesh?

What is the root and fatness of the olive tree? It is Christ and the covenantal blessings and promises of Israel.
Rom 11:17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;

Exactly. But in what way? As fellowheirs. And what is a fellowheir? One who receives what he has been allotted/assigned. NOT everything available, but what has been allotted/assigned. So what has been allotted/assigned? The promise given to Abraham ("all nations shall be blessed") as detailed by Paul (Gal 3:8, Rom 4:13-17,...). There is no other promises allotted/assigned. There is NO NEED for anything more. We have Christ, which is all one could ever want or need. There is nothing more, or greater. If you understand and believe that, you don't have to rewrite scripture to say you are Israel. There is NO NEED to be Israel.

Paul tells the church in Ephesus that at one time they were aliens to Israel but now are made one with them because of the blood of Christ.
Eph 2:11-14 Wherefore remember, that ye [being] in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition [between us];Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, [even] the law of commandments [contained] in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, [so] making peace;And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
Paul again here tells this Gentile church, who was also one of the Churches of Asia Minor in Revelation, that they were once aliens from the commonwealth of Israel but now because of the blood of Christ, they are one with Israel.

Correct. We're in agreement. However, this NEVER says that Gentiles become Israel. We join the family of God as Gentiles, and we remain Gentiles, as God loves us as Gentiles just as much as He loves Jews as Jews. He is no respecter of persons.

The Gentiles and the Jews are one in Christ because of the New Covenant blood of Christ.

Here we go again with those things not in the Bible. We are one in Christ under the promise given to Abraham in the Old Covenant, the SAME promise that Isaac is under. The Bible says nothing about us being in Christ due to the New Covenant. Go ahead, prove me wrong WITH SCRIPTURE.

Since we are one with Israel in the olive tree then all of the promises are our's also.

So we should just take your word, and just ignore all that is said about us being fellowheirs, receiving what we've been allotted. Do we just cut those scriptures out of our Bible, and just accept what you say? Is that what we do? You're ignoring the written word of God, and superceding what the Holy Spirit teaches with what you teach.
Not good...

If not, show me a scripture proving your stand? So far you have said that it isn't true but you have yet to come across with one scripture saying definitely that Gentiles do not have more than one promise.

I listed MANY for you above that clearly state we Gentiles receive the single promise. I can't find ANY that support what you're saying, that we Gentiles receive all of the promises. I listed MANY scriptures for you which say we're fellowheirs, receiving what we've been allotted. I can't find ANY scriptures which support what you're saying, that we receive the same things that Israel receives, because we actually become Israel. I can't find ANY scripture that says we receive the same things as Israel, and I can't find ANY scripture that says we become Israel. You have listed NONE, ZERO, ZIP, NADA, ZILCH, NOTHING,... that supports this notion.

Let's see what you got.

God Bless!

 

[ddub85]

@ GLJCA

Quote:
I keep telling you, but you refuse to hear. The way to salvation for us Gentiles was given in Gen 12:3, and ratified in Gen 15. When Christ' blood was shed, He OBTAINED a more excellent ministry, making the covenant already in place more excellent, providing salvation for us Gentiles under the Old Covenant as promised, with His blood. The Bible says NOTHING about salvation for us under the New Covenant, however.

How is it that you say that the covenant in place became more excellent when the Bible said that it was done away with? HMMM, now which one should I believe?
Hbr 8:13 In that he saith, A new [covenant], he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old [is] ready to vanish away.
That doesn't sound like to me that the old is more excellent. It sounds like to me that it is decayed and old and is vanishing away. What a difference in what you have said and what the Bible says.

You should believe what the Bible says, but you seem very reluctant to do so. I understand that the Bible is clearly contradicting what you've been taught, but still... believe the Bible.
Here is where the Bible says the covenant in place is more excellent;
Hbr 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry

This is what has been OBTAINED, meaning this is done and in place.
Next, you argue that this scripture says the Old Covenant is done away with;

Hbr 8:13 In that he saith, A new [covenant], he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old [is] ready to vanish away.

Does it say VANISHED AWAY? Or, does it say READY TO VANISH AWAY? The scripture YOU listed says READY TO VANISH AWAY. As I told you previously, if my car is old, decaying, and ready to vanish away, could I still be driving it? If I'm looking at new cars, could I still be driving my old, decaying one? Is it VANISHING, or is it VANISHED? You do acknowledge there's a difference between the two, don't you?

Clearly, the Bible says it's ready to vanish, meaning it's still here. Also, as a side note, it's saying that it will be REPLACED, meaning when the new comes, the old must go. They won't be here together. Just a future side note.

What a difference in what you have said and what the Bible says.

On the contrary, I'm saying what the Bible says, and PROVING it. You, on the other hand, are opposing what the Bible says.

I made the statement that when Christ died the New Covenant came into effect.

Yes, YOU made that statement, but the Bible did not.
You said,
Quote:
Fine. What scripture says so? If you can't list a scripture that says so, I think you should stop saying it. There is no truth to the statement. It is only your opinion. Besides, I thought you said the New Covenant came into effect at the last supper?

First I never said that the New Covenant came into effect at the last Supper. You must have me confused with someone else.

No problem. I digress.

I showed you the same scripture that you presented earlier. It plainly brings out the fact that Jesus was the mediator of the New Testament by means of His death.

There is no argument over whether or not Jesus is the mediator of the New Covenant! We agree on that fact! But you say the New Covenant is in effect. Jesus being mediator of it doesn't mean it's in effect. Those are two different things, so this statement doesn't help you.

It also brings out that a testament comes into effect upon the death of the testor.
Hbr 9:15-17 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions [that were] under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament [is], there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament [is] of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
How plain do you need it? That seems pretty plain to me. No testament can come into effect until after the death of the testor. Did Christ die? If He didn't then you would be correct in saying that the New Covenant is not in effect yet but since He died you don't have a leg to stand on.

You are reading things into the verse that just aren't there. It DOES NOT say that when Christ dies, the New covenant comes into effect. That is what you read, and NOT what is said. Hbr 9:15 says He died for the sins of the Old Covenant, so that those who are called (those whom He died for), might receive what is to come.
On top of that, He's speaking to the Hebrews, which isn't you or me!

Quote:
Ratification and coming into effect are two different things. I can ratify the circus in March, but it may not come into effect until July.

You are sounding more and more desperate to find something to say. The scriptures above is speaking against you.

I'm letting the Bible speak. Do you disagree these are two different things? If so, express that, and how you come to that conclusion.

Quote:
Not the old? You'd better read more closely.
"...that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions [that were] under the first testament,".
First testament = Old Covenant. Didn't you just say that covenant and testament are the same word? What do you think the first testament is?

I agree but I didn't quit reading there I kept on going. You see the Dispy has to take his proof scriptures out of context to make them work for him, I don't have to. I just take what the Word of God says at face value. The rest of that verse says, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
Paul says in Romans 8:30 that those who are saved are, what? Called. That verse not only shows redemption for the OT saint but also for the NT saint.

NT saint? What do you mean by that? NT saint as in those living during the life and times of Christ, or NT saint meaning under a New Covenant?

I am listing the scriptures are you reading them? I am proving my stand which is a whole lot more than you are doing. All you are doing is disagreeing with what the scriptures I am presenting is saying.

Then let's see what you've PROVEN. List it right here.

Quote:
Here is another reference that apparently you have missed in forming this belief.
Heb 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
What did Christ do away with? The Old Covenant so that He could establish the New Covenant.

But you said,
Quote:
That would be incorrect. Here the writer is comparing law to grace. The first is the law, and the second is grace. He isn't comparing the Old Covenant to the New Covenant.

He taketh away the first testament which was by the law and brought in the second testament which was by grace. I am not saying this the writer of Hebrews did. He shows that by one sacrifice for sins Christ perfected forever them who are sanctified. In verse 15 the writer melds the two thoughts together and in verse 16 brings in the covenant promise made in Jer 31 into the context of the chapter. You must read the whole chapter in context DDUB. He shows that Law is Old Covenant and grace is New Covenant brought in by the New Covenant blood of Christ.

There are major problems with your position. First, the law IS NOT the Old Covenant;

Gal 3:17 And this I say, [that] the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
As you can see, the law came 430 years AFTER the Old Covenant.

Second, grace didn't come with the New Covenant. There was grace in the Old Covenant. The law prevented the OLD COVENANT promise of grace. Christ allowed grace to abound.

Therefore, what you saying is obviously incorrect.

Again you must read the whole context of the chapter or else your interpretation will be incorrect, as I believe that it is.

If CTers would only practice what they preach, we probably wouldn't even be having this conversation.

God Bless!

 

[GLJCA]

DDUB says

I keep telling you, but you refuse to hear. The way to salvation for us Gentiles was given in Gen 12:3, and ratified in Gen 15. When Christ' blood was shed, He OBTAINED a more excellent ministry, making the covenant already in place more excellent, providing salvation for us Gentiles under the Old Covenant as promised, with His blood. The Bible says NOTHING about salvation for us under the New Covenant, however.

I hear what you are saying but the Bible nor the one scripture that you presented says the same. You are picking that belief out of mid air because it is not in scripture. You can say it all you want but that does not make it true.

I have asked you to show me in the Old Covenant where it says that we Gentiles are saved apart from the New Covenant.

You should believe what the Bible says, but you seem very reluctant to do so. I understand that the Bible is clearly contradicting what you've been taught, but still... believe the Bible.

Here is where the Bible says the covenant in place is more excellent;
Hbr 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry

Oh I do believe what the Bible says but it is different than what you are saying. This scripture says that he obtained a more excellent ministry. YOU SAID that He made the Old Covenant more excellent. TWO DIFFERENT IDEAS!!

As a matter of fact if you would have read the scripture you presented you would see that it proves that your idea is bogus. Carefully read it again.
Heb 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.
Notice it says, "which was established upon best promises." The writer is showing that the New Covenant that Christ is mediating has already been established. Now not future.

I made the statement that when Christ died the New Covenant came into effect.
You said,
Yes, YOU made that statement, but the Bible did not.

Oh my brother. I showed you the scripture that undenible shows that the New Covenant came into effect at the death of the testor, Christ. The scripture that I presented above shows that the New Covenant has been established already.

You are reading things into the verse that just aren't there. It DOES NOT say that when Christ dies, the New covenant comes into effect. That is what you read, and NOT what is said. Hbr 9:15 says He died for the sins of the Old Covenant, so that those who are called (those whom He died for), might receive what is to come.

On top of that, He's speaking to the Hebrews, which isn't you or me!

Heb 9:17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
Slam dunk my friend. Let's use the language of the Bible. A testament is "of force". That means that the testament becomes enforcible after the death of the testor. Christ died and the New Covenant is "of force".

The Bible is plainly showing that the New Covenant is in effect upon the shedding of Christ blood and His death.

GLJCA





GLJCA

 

[ddub85]

@ GLJCA

I hear what you are saying but the Bible nor the one scripture that you presented says the same. You are picking that belief out of mid air because it is not in scripture. You can say it all you want but that does not make it true.

Let's see if you hear what I'm saying. I said this scripture, this promise, was the way to salvation for us Gentiles.
OT Scripture: "...and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed."

Paul CONFIRMS that fact;
Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, [saying], In thee shall all nations be blessed.

God brought righteousness to us Gentiles by way of this Old Covenant promise, written in scripture. Ho do we know it brought righteousness?
Gal 3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
Gal 3:7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.

All that I said is CONFIRMED in these scriptures. There's nothing pulled out of mid air, it's all written right here in plain language. God brought salvation to us Gentiles through this Old Covenant promise to Abraham.

I have asked you to show me in the Old Covenant where it says that we Gentiles are saved apart from the New Covenant.

There you have it. These scriptures say absolutely nothing about the New Covenant, and they speak of our salvation. Now... can you show where salvation comes to us Gentiles through the New Covenant?

Quote:
You should believe what the Bible says, but you seem very reluctant to do so. I understand that the Bible is clearly contradicting what you've been taught, but still... believe the Bible.
Quote:
Here is where the Bible says the covenant in place is more excellent;
Hbr 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry

Oh I do believe what the Bible says but it is different than what you are saying. This scripture says that he obtained a more excellent ministry. YOU SAID that He made the Old Covenant more excellent. TWO DIFFERENT IDEAS!!
As a matter of fact if you would have read the scripture you presented you would see that it proves that your idea is bogus. Carefully read it again.
Heb 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.
Notice it says, "which was established upon best promises." The writer is showing that the New Covenant that Christ is mediating has already been established. Now not future.

We're in agreement!!! Let's look closely though at what you're actually saying.
Part I) "But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry,"

This is the first part of the statement, and it lists what was OBTAINED.
obtain; tugchano (strong's 5177)
1) to hit the mark
a) of one discharging a javelin or arrow
2) to reach, attain, obtain, get, become master of
3) to happen, chance, fall out
a) to specify, to take a case, as for example
4) to meet one
5) of he who meets one or presents himself unsought, any chance, ordinary, common person
6) to chance to be
So this is what hit the mark, what was reached, happened,... OBTAINED. A more excellent ministry was obtained, and nothing else. "More excellent" means that what was already there, was made "more excellent". Consider that, even by your view, the New Covenant wasn't there yet. So the New Covenant CANNOT be the "more excellent ministry". What was already there? The Old Covenant. So obviously the Old Covenant is the ministry made "more excellent".

Part II) "by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises."

Let's begin with the word "also". What the writer is sayig is something was obtained, and ALSO, which denotes a second happening that's not connected to what was obtained. This second thing was ESTABLISHED, not obtained. They are two different words with two different meanings!
establish; nomotheteo (strong's 3549)
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
So this second thing was ESTABLISHED, it was all set to go. The legalities were handled, and there is nothing to stop it when it comes. All has been taken care of to bring it. But it hasn't been brought yet, it hasn't been OBTAINED. See that? So what is it?
A better covenant with better promises, a covenant in which Jesus Christ is the mediator. That's what was ESTABLISHED.There can be no doubt that this is the New Covenant.

So in short, what was obtained, the "more excellent ministry", is not what was established, the "new covenant". They are two different things, at two different places. One has been obtained, and the other has been established.
I've explained this to you already, but you weren't able to hear it. I hope you hear what I'm saying this time. You don't have to accept it obviously, but I just want you to hear it, and at least hear what I'm saying.

Quote:
I made the statement that when Christ died the New Covenant came into effect.
You said,
Yes, YOU made that statement, but the Bible did not.

Oh my brother. I showed you the scripture that undenible shows that the New Covenant came into effect at the death of the testor, Christ. The scripture that I presented above shows that the New Covenant has been established already.

No argument that the New Covenant was "established". But "came into effect" (past tense)"? As in, was "obtained"? No. Those are two different things, and NOT what the Bible says.
Quote:
You are reading things into the verse that just aren't there. It DOES NOT say that when Christ dies, the New covenant comes into effect. That is what you read, and NOT what is said. Hbr 9:15 says He died for the sins of the Old Covenant, so that those who are called (those whom He died for), might receive what is to come.
Quote:
On top of that, He's speaking to the Hebrews, which isn't you or me!

Heb 9:17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
Slam dunk my friend. Let's use the language of the Bible. A testament is "of force". That means that the testament becomes enforcible after the death of the testor. Christ died and the New Covenant is "of force".
The Bible is plainly showing that the New Covenant is in effect upon the shedding of Christ blood and His death.

Again, you are enhancing, or adding to, what has been stated. Let's startt with the word "of force";
Of force- bebaios {beb'-ah-yos}

TDNT Reference Root Word
TDNT - 1:600,103 from the base of 939 (through the idea of basality)
Part of Speech
adj
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) stable, fast, firm
2) metaph. sure, trusty
So a testament is stable, firm, sure, trusty, "ESTABLISHED". You are stating it as if it is "in force", or obtained. See the difference? So the New Testament was established when Christ shed His blood, and on that we agree. But obtained? No. That's NOT what the Bible says.

I hope you can see that.

God Bless!

 

[GLJCA]

Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, [saying], In thee shall all nations be blessed.

See that? Let there be no doubt. Care to comment?

Excuse me but this scripture is not saying what I asked for. I asked for an Old Covenant scripture promising salvation to the Gentiles, this one is speaking of blessing not salvation. Can you admit that there is a difference between blessing and salvation?

The children of Israel who died in the wilderness were blessed with along with Caleb and Joshua but that didn't mean they were saved. In fact the Bible says that they did not enter into God's rest because of unbelief.

You can not give me one scripture because there isn't one. There is no reference giving Gentiles salvation except in the New Covenant blood of Christ. Even the scripture that you presented in Heb 9:15 speaks against you.

GLJCA

 

[GLJCA]

Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. For where a covenant is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive. Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood.

I noticed in your defintion of "of force" that you did not stay choose the word that was consistent with the context of chapters 8,9, & 10.

So a testament is stable, firm, sure, trusty, "ESTABLISHED". You are stating it as if it is "in force", or obtained. See the difference? So the New Testament was established when Christ shed His blood, and on that we agree. But obtained? No. That's NOT what the Bible says.

Heb 8:17 For a testament [is] of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
Let's insert the words of the definition into this verse unlike what you did.
For a testament is stable, firm, sure, trusty after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testor liveth.
I am stating the same thing that the Bible is stating my brother. I am saying that the New Testament is stable, firm, sure, trusty after the testor, Christ, died. Your supposed difference in the definition does not have a leg to stand on.
If the New Testament was not in effect today then it would not be stable, firm, sure, trusty.

Also I noticed that you did not define "takes effect". This scripture says that a will takes effect only at the death of the testor. Please define "takes effect"?

This ought to be good!!

A covenant was inaugurated with the blood of Christ. But the New Covenant wasn't inaugurated with the blood of Christ.

Speaking of good. This comment to HeyMikey is classic Dispensational. Like a dog chasing his tail. Please tell us what covenant was inaugurated with the blood of Christ?
1 Cor 11:25 After the same manner also [he took] the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink [it], in remembrance of me.

inaugurate
1 : to induct into an office with suitable ceremonies
2 a : to dedicate ceremoniously : observe formally the beginning of <inaugurate a new school> b : to bring about the beginning of

Do you pick the part of the definition that fits your belief and throw out the rest? Jesus brought about the beginning of the New Covenant. He dedicated ceremoniously the New Covenant. Jesus observed formally the beginning of the New Covenant. All of them apply. You can't just pick the one you think applies to your belief. Well I guess you can but you will be in error.

GLJCA