New Covenant

[heymikey80]

You really don't know how we're connected to Isaac? You don't even understand the story you're reading here in Gal 4, do you?

Clearly it's you who doesn't know how we're connected to Isaac. You're the one who stated it's repeated over & over again, yet you can repeat nothing.

Because it doesn't appear repeatedly in Scripture.

It appears only once.

Here.

And here it's an allegory. Paul's words mean more to me than yours do. "This is allegorically speaking ..."

The rest of your statements shake under this distinct lack of factual foundation. You made the assertion. It's false.

This is going in exactly the same direction as last time. You're making baseless assertions from what you'd expect within your theology, and when we turn to Scripture and it's not found there, you backpedal into the theology that got you to that baseless assertion.

But you won't depart this view. It's demonstrated again to be your chosen view of God, but it's not what Scripture itself actually states.

 

[ddub85]

@ heymikey

HAPPY NEW YEAR!

Clearly it's...

Wait, wait, wait... what about the 4 points you just made? Are you just abandoning those? Oh, I get it; OK, so...
1. Apparently you can serve a covenant that isn't operating. Glad we're in agreement on that point.

2. Glad you see we're not discussing the Mosaic Covenant, so you no longer have to bring it up again as a diverson.

3. You now acknowledge that being a minister doesn't mean we're a recipient. Good.

4. The blood of Jesus was shed for the Abrahamic Covenant. I'm glad you now understand that. I mean, that's why you brought all of this up, right?

Now, you were saying?

Clearly it's you who doesn't know how we're connected to Isaac. You're the one who stated it's repeated over & over again, yet you can repeat nothing.
Because it doesn't appear repeatedly in Scripture.
It appears only once.
Here.
And here it's an allegory. Paul's words mean more to me than yours do. "This is allegorically speaking ..."
The rest of your statements shake under this distinct lack of factual foundation. You made the assertion. It's false.

If my statements were shaking, you surely would have answered the questions I asked on the subject, rather than avoiding them and pretending like they're beneath you. I think it's quite obvious who's shaking. You realize that Isaac is under the Abrahamic Covenant, and that is our connection. So why not just answer the questions? You can't, can you? Here they are again;

How are we parties to the covenant? How is our connection to the covenant different from Isaac's? Is Isaac somehow NOT the seed of Abraham? Please explain. I'll wait.

This is going in exactly the same direction as...

--"Blah blah blah blah..." Stop it mikey, stop it. You're running. It's obvious. It's embarrassing. If you weren't, you would dialogue. You can't, so you run. Just admit you can't answer the questions, admit you're incorrect, and stOp spreading things that aren't true on the site.

God Bless!

 

[heymikey80]

Wait, wait, wait... what about the 4 points you just made? Are you just abandoning those?

Because you didn't respond to my challenge. And it's because you can't.

(1) No, we can't serve a covenant that's not operating. Only the inaugurator can do that. (3) Being a minister means being a servant. Learn Greek, then you might find why your points are incoherent. Serving a covenant means operating on its behalf. The covenant is therefore operating through the servant. To "inaugurate" means to begin. Once a covenant is begun, it is operating. Do you start your car and then deny it's running? (4) The Blood of Jesus was explicitly (according to Jesus) shed for the New Covenant.

And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood." Lk 22:20
​

The New Covenant covers sins committed across all time, all the way back to Adam. Romans 5 pointed this out. It's always good to conform to Scripture. Covenant obligations don't disappear with new covenants. (2) The New Covenant fulfils covenant obligations and promises made in earlier covenants, as demonstrated with the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants.

I've collected these answers again to skewer the argument -- they're plastered like broadsides across this conversation. But with successive plasterings no doubt they're not clear in the minds of readers.

You'll never get around to answering my challenge directly. Because you know as well as I do, the connection with Isaac is not repeated "over and over again". And here in Galatians 4 it's allegory. Paul says so (4:24). Your assertion is demonstrably false. To build on falsehood will inevitably bring a false result.

 

[pebblesflintstone]

I want to know how you all feel about the following subject.

Since Christ established the New Covenant with God, does that mean that unless Jesus mentions something from the Old Testament specifically, we do not need to follow it? Or does that mean that we simply do not know whether or not to follow it?

I would appreciate imput.

Thanks.

If you carefully read the scriptures you will read and understand that Messiah NEVER came to do away with the "old covenant" it's all ONE scripture...Messiah mentions a couple of things from this "old covenant" (which in my opinion i don't see it as an old covenant rather a continuing one)...the keeping of the sabbath, for example is found in the "New Testament", one must never forget that Our Messiah was jewish, his disciples where jewish, so we must learn to see the "New Testament" from that perspective not from our own ideas that there is a "New covenant...The Brit Hadasha was written by mostly hebrew/jewish man...this makes a huge difference in how one views it's writings...personally one must be aware of this and take it into account, reading the word of God from a hebrew perspective will give us a better idea of what it is talking about, if we don't keep in mind this and we read it depending on our own ideas then we will end up really lost, especially in our doctrines..

just my thoughts....

 

[heymikey80]

If you carefully read the scriptures you will read and understand that Messiah NEVER came to do away with the "old covenant" it's all ONE scripture...Messiah mentions a couple of things from this "old covenant" (which in my opinion i don't see it as an old covenant rather a continuing one)...the keeping of the sabbath, for example is found in the "New Testament", one must never forget that Our Messiah was jewish, his disciples where jewish, so we must learn to see the "New Testament" from that perspective not from our own ideas that there is a "New covenant...The Brit Hadasha ( New testament) was written by mostly hebrew/jewish man...this makes a huge difference in how one views it's writings...personally one must be aware of this and take it into account, reading the word of God from a hebrew perspective will give us a better idea of what it is talking about, if we don't keep in mind this and we read it depending on our own ideas then we will end up really lost, especially in our doctrines..

just my thoughts....

Yes, think you've got a good point here.

To me the ultimate question is God's intent in setting up the covenants. The conflict Yeshua and Saul seem to be setting up is a question of, "When God made the covenant did He intend the Messiah's view of Law, nation, worship -- or the Jewish people's view?" That extends to the New Covenant as well as the preceding covenants. They believe there is fulfilment of the preceding covenants that can make them moot points, and it seems there is irrelevancy in some stipulations that they don't want the Gentiles to get entangled with (see Acts 15). But if they're moot points, if they're really fulfilled, then they won't still have claims based on their conditions.

 

[Jim1]

.

 

[Jim1]

If you carefully read the scriptures you will read and understand that Messiah NEVER came to do away with the "old covenant" it's all ONE scripture...Messiah mentions a couple of things from this "old covenant" (which in my opinion i don't see it as an old covenant rather a continuing one)...the keeping of the sabbath, for example is found in the "New Testament", one must never forget that Our Messiah was jewish, his disciples where jewish, so we must learn to see the "New Testament" from that perspective not from our own ideas that there is a "New covenant...The Brit Hadasha ( New testament) was written by mostly hebrew/jewish man...this makes a huge difference in how one views it's writings...personally one must be aware of this and take it into account, reading the word of God from a hebrew perspective will give us a better idea of what it is talking about, if we don't keep in mind this and we read it depending on our own ideas then we will end up really lost, especially in our doctrines..

just my thoughts....

Of course the New Covenant replaces the Old Covenant, otherwise it wouldn't be the New Covenant. The Jeremiah prophecy itself says that the Old Covenant was broken and that it is replaced with a New Covenant which is different than the Old Covenant was and which accomplishes what the Old Covenant could not accomplish. In 2 Corinthians 3, Paul contrasts the Old Covenant as the covenant of the letter, which results in death, and which is done away, and the New Covenant as the covenant of the Spirit, which results in life, and which remains. Paul consistently uses the same verb ("katargew" [I do away]) in reference to the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant is the thing that is done away, and the New Covenant is the thing that remains (3:11). In 3:14, Paul says that the Old Covenant is done away by/in Christ. In Galatians 3:16-29, Paul describes the Old Covenant of the law of Moses as a temporary covenant which began 430 years after the Abrahamic Covenant and which ceased once the promise of the Abrahamic Covenant was received in the New Covenant through belief in Christ, the recipients of the Abrahamic promise in the New Covenant through belief in Christ being no longer under the law. In Galatians 4:21-31, Paul identifies the saints as the New Covenant people, whose Jerusalem is above (in Hebrews 12:22-24, the heavenly Jerusalem is identified with the New Covenant), who are the heirs of the promise (the promise of the Abrahamic Covenant is received in the New Covenant through belief in Christ, as stated in Romans 4:13-16 and in Galatians 3:16-29 and in Ephesians 2:12 and 3:6 and in Hebrews 9:15), and the Jews (non-saints) as the Old Covenant people, whose Jerusalem is on earth, who are not heirs of the promise. In Hebrews 8:6-13, the New Covenant mediated by Christ has made old and obsolete the first covenant. In Hebrews 10:9, Christ takes away the first thing (the animal sacrifice of the Old Covenant) so that He can set in place the second thing (His true Sacrifice), by which we are made holy (10:10). This describes a replacement of the Old Covenant with its animal sacrifice by the New Covenant with its true Sacrifice. In Ephesians 2:14-16, it is at the cross, where Christ initiates the New Covenant by shedding the Blood of the New Covenant, that He "does away" (katargew) the law of Moses, which had separated Gentile from Jew, in order to create the two into one new man and reconcile the both in one body to God through the cross. In Romans 7:6, we who believe in Christ are "done away" (katargew) from the law of Moses to serve God in the Newness (the New Covenant) of the Spirit instead of the Oldness (the Old Covenant) of the letter. The Old Covenant ended at the cross. The fact that Jewish unbelievers continued to practice the now-defunct Old Covenant doesn't change this fact. All it proves is that they're blind. As Paul says in 2 Corinthians 3:13-14, the same veil that originally prevented the Jews from seeing the end of the thing being done away (the end of the Old Covenant) continues to lie on the reading of the Old Covenant, preventing them from seeing that the Old Covenant is "done away" (katargew) by/in Christ.

 

[heymikey80]

Then what'd Paul mean by:

To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, "And to offsprings," referring to many, but referring to one, "And to your offspring," who is Christ. This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise. Gal 3:15-18
​

 

[dvd_holc]

That is the thing about covenants...covenants are almost always broken so then have to be re-established...that re-establishment is not new but reconciliation of the old. The covenants before Christ anticipated Jesus and the covenant established fulfilled the promise of the death penalty of humanity breaking the covenants, but now our penalty has been paid for so that the relationship that the covenant was to establish create is not hindered and we are lovers of God in His merciful grace.

 

[Jim1]

Hi heymikey80,


heymikey80:

Then what'd Paul mean by: “To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, "And to off-springs," referring to many, but referring to one, "And to your offspring," who is Christ. This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise. Gal 3:15-18”


Jim:

I don’t understand your question. What about this citation is unclear to you? The Abrahamic Covenant, in which the inheritance was given as a promise, preceded the Covenant of the law of Moses by 430 years. The former was not nullified by the latter. The inheritance did not change 430 years later from being something that is received by promise to being something that is earned by keeping the law of Moses.

You stopped at verse 3:18. After having stated in verse 3:16 that Christ is the Seed to whom the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant were originally made, Paul states in verses 3:18-19, “For if out of law, the inheritance, no longer out of promise. But to the Abraham through promise He has graciously given, the God. What then the law? Of the transgressions, for the sake of, it was added until which He would come, the Seed, to whom it has been promised (the subject of this verb ‘it has been promised’ is a reference to ‘the inheritance’ in verse 3:18), having been arranged (a reference to the law) through angels by/in hand of mediator.”

Thus, the covenant of the law of Moses was a temporary measure that was added for the sake of transgressions—in Romans 5:20, Paul states that the purpose of the law of Moses was to INCREASE transgression—430 years after the Abrahamic Covenant only UNTIL which time the Seed (Christ) to whom the inheritance had been promised would come.

Thus, the inheritance of the Abrahamic Covenant was originally meant for Christ, and between the initial arrangement of the Abrahamic Covenant with Christ and the fulfillment of it in Christ, the law of Moses was added to INCREASE transgression UNTIL Christ came.

In Galatians 3:22, Paul states, “But it confined, the scripture, all the things under sin, so that that promise out of belief of Jesus Christ would be given to the ones believing.”

In 3:24-25, Paul states, “... the law, instructor of us it has become to Christ, so that out of belief we would be made righteous. But having come, the belief, no longer under instructor (the law) we are.

In 3:29, Paul states, “And if you, Christ’s, consequently the Abraham’s seed you are, according to promise, heirs.”

Thus, the inheritance of the promise/promises of the Abrahamic Covenant was always meant for Christ (the mediator of the New Covenant); and the law of Moses (the Old Covenant) was only a temporary measure that lasted from 430 years after the Abrahamic Covenant was initiated until Christ, the Heir, came; and Christ (the Heir) shares His inheritance in the New Covenant with everyone who believes in Him, all believers in Christ becoming fellow heirs of the inheritance of the Abrahamic promise/promises in the New Covenant through belief in Christ.

Compare Romans 4:13, where Paul states, “For not through law the promise to the Abraham, or to the seed of him, the heir, him to be, of world, but through righteousness of belief.”

Compare also Romans 10:4, where Paul states, “For end of law, Christ, for righteousness to everyone believing.”

Compare also 2 Corinthians 3:10-14, where Paul states, “For also/even it has not been glorified, the thing having been glorified, in this part, because of the surpassing glory. For if the thing being done away, through glory, much more the thing remaining, by/in glory. (Here, Paul says that the glory of the thing that is done away [the Old Covenant] has been surpassed [it has already happened] by the glory of the thing that remains [the New Covenant].) Therefore, having such hope, we employ much confidence, and not as Moses. He put veil on the face of him to the not to look, the sons of Israel, into the end of the thing being done away (the end of the Old Covenant). But it was hardened, the minds of them. For until the today day, the same veil on the reading of the Old Covenant remains, not being unveiled, that by/in Christ it (the Old Covenant) is done away.” (The same veil that originally prevented the Jews from seeing that the Old Covenant was to come to an end continued in Paul’s day to prevent the Jews [most of them] from seeing that Christ had brought an end to the Old Covenant of the letter when He initiated the New Covenant of the Spirit by shedding the Blood of the New Covenant on the cross to remove sin. This blindness by the veil is why most of the Jews continued in the reading of the Old Covenant instead of believing in Christ [the mediator of the New Covenant].)

Compare also Hebrews 9:15, where the author states, “And because of this, of Covenant, New, mediator He is, so as, death having happened for ransom of the in-the-first-covenant transgressions, the promise they would receive, the called ones, of the eternal inheritance.”


Jim

 

[heymikey80]

Why would the New Covenant replace the Old Covenant if the Old Covenant didn't replace the Abrahamic Covenant?

To me inasmuch as the New Covenant fulfils the Old Covenant it completes that covenant. In that sense it would replace the Old Covenant as to the OC activities. But that'd leave the OC stipulations active, just included, in the NC.

 

[Jim1]

Why would the New Covenant replace the Old Covenant if the Old Covenant didn't replace the Abrahamic Covenant?

To me inasmuch as the New Covenant fulfils the Old Covenant it completes that covenant. In that sense it would replace the Old Covenant as to the OC activities. But that'd leave the OC stipulations active, just included, in the NC.

If the Old Covenant had replaced the Abrahamic Covenant, the New Covenant then replacing the Old Covenant, then there would have been no Abrahamic Covenant to be fulfilled in the New Covenant. Not only does the Bible teach the replacement of the Old Covenant by the New Covenant, the Abrahamic Covenant finding its fulfillment in the New Covenant, but the very definitions of the Old and New Covenants presuppose a replacement of the former by the latter. The Old Covenant doesn't achieve anything other than to confine people under sin, hence the New Covenant. As Paul says in Galatians 2, if righteousness were through the law, then Christ's death woud have been for nothing. As he says in Galatians 3, if there were a law that could make alive, then righteousness would have been by the law. This love affair that people have with the law is just the sinful desire of the flesh for self-aggrandizement. People want a law to keep to give them the opportunity to say, Look at me! Look how I'm keeping this law! Aren't I something! Human flesh is very proud and very foolish.

 

[ddub85]

@ heymikey

I apologize for the long hiatus.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ddub85
Wait, wait, wait... what about the 4 points you just made? Are you just abandoning those?

Because you didn't respond to my challenge. And it's because you can't.

--Gal 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

We, like Isaac, are **CHILDREN OF THE PROMISE**, repeated over and over and over and over and over again in the Bible.

Now,... would you like to see the scriptures???

(1) No, we can't serve a covenant that's not operating. Only the inaugurator can do that.

And therefore, we can't serve the New Covenant because the Bible NEVER says that we're under the New Covenant. Also, the Bible NEVER says the New Covenant is for Gentiles.

(3) Being a minister means being a servant. Learn Greek, then you might find why your points are incoherent. Serving a covenant means operating on its behalf. The covenant is therefore operating through the servant.

FALSE STATEMENT, and easily proven false. Jonah was a minister to the people of Nineveh, and NOT serving under his prophecy to them. Therefore, your statement is FALSE, and that point isn't even debatable. It's a PROVEN fact.

To "inaugurate" means to begin. Once a covenant is begun, it is operating. Do you start your car and then deny it's running?

The Bible says the New Covenant was "sanctioned", not begun. It NEVER says it was begun. You are saying that, and not the Bible. A prize fight is always "sanctioned" before the fight takes place. The Bible says "SANCTIONED", NOT BEGUN.

Since you know Greek, you only now need to be honest.

(4) The Blood of Jesus was explicitly (according to Jesus) shed for the New Covenant.
And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood." Lk 22:20

Amen. But you leave out the next verse in which Jesus says I won't drink it new with you UNTIL. Let's don't leave that out. That would be both irresponsible and dishonest.

The New Covenant covers sins committed across all time, all the way back to Adam. Romans 5 pointed this out. It's always good to conform to Scripture. Covenant obligations don't disappear with new covenants.

????? Romans 5 says" the New Covenant covers sins committed across all time" ????? WHERE IS THAT IN ROMANS 5? You say it's good to conform to scripture, but you should at least quote scripture properly. This is a reach if ever there was one. This is an act of desperation.

(2) The New Covenant fulfils covenant obligations and promises made in earlier covenants, as demonstrated with the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants.

You haven't produced one scripture which says the New Covenant has begun, nor that it's for Gentiles. Yet, you continue to deceive people by pretending these things are true by talking around the facts.

I've collected these answers again to skewer the argument -- they're plastered like broadsides across this conversation. But with successive plasterings no doubt they're not clear in the minds of readers.

The answers you render don't stand up. Just read the responses.

You'll never get around to answering my challenge directly. Because you know as well as I do, the connection with Isaac is not repeated "over and over again". And here in Galatians 4 it's allegory. Paul says so (4:24). Your assertion is demonstrably false. To build on falsehood will inevitably bring a false result.

Gal 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
We, like Isaac, are **CHILDREN OF THE PROMISE**, repeated over and over and over and over and over again in the Bible.
Now,... would you like to see the scriptures???

God Bless!

 

[heymikey80]

Same conclusion substantiated.

We, like Isaac, are **CHILDREN OF THE PROMISE**, repeated over and over and over and over and over again in the Bible.

Now,... would you like to see the scriptures???

I challenged you to cite other places in Scripture where Isaac's connection with us is "repeated over and over again" weeks ago.

You say it's not an allegory. Yet Paul flatly states it is.

And therefore, we can't serve the New Covenant because the Bible NEVER says that we're under the New Covenant. Also, the Bible NEVER says the New Covenant is for Gentiles.

It also never says God is three Persons, but the truth is clear from the statements Scripture makes. I've already cited 2 Cor 3, Gal 3, Gal 4, Jesus on the Lord's Supper in 1 Cor 11, and it goes on & on. But note why Jesus is considered the mediator of a new covenant:

For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God. 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. Heb 9:13-15
​

It's because Jesus is sanctifying us. The New Covenant is operating, because Jesus is sanctifying us! Hebrews restates this case, too. The Covenant has been started, on the death of the covenanter. It's only by obsessing on the absence of a single particular statement that you could miss this.

The passage above also says inheritance of eternal life is given because the New Covenant is mediated by Jesus.

You're not getting anywhere because you're simply reiterating the absence of a statement. The absence of a statement is not a statement about omitting it. "We are presently made competent to be servants of a new covenant." 2 Cor 3:6

FALSE STATEMENT, and easily proven false. Jonah was a minister to the people of Nineveh, and NOT serving under his prophecy to them. Therefore, your statement is FALSE, and that point isn't even debatable. It's a PROVEN fact.

You're saying Jonah wasn't serving salvation to the repentant people of Nineveh? That "through you [Abraham] the nations will be blessed"?

It's a covenant promise Jonah was fulfilling.

And JONAH was part of the covenant! It's a PROVEN fact!

Nineveh might be questioned in your wild view of covenants. But JONAH?

The Bible says the New Covenant was "sanctioned", not begun. It NEVER says it was begun. You are saying that, and not the Bible. A prize fight is always "sanctioned" before the fight takes place. The Bible says "SANCTIONED", NOT BEGUN.

For a covenant 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. Heb 9:17-18

Since you know Greek, you only now need to be honest.

Amen. But you leave out the next verse in which Jesus says I won't drink it new with you UNTIL. Let's don't leave that out. That would be both irresponsible and dishonest.

????? Romans 5 says" the New Covenant covers sins committed across all time" ????? WHERE IS THAT IN ROMANS 5? You say it's good to conform to scripture, but you should at least quote scripture properly. This is a reach if ever there was one. This is an act of desperation.

Not desperate. It's just you don't want it to be clear.

Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Rom 5:18-21
​

What's it say? Where sin increased. Where'd sin increase? Where the Law came in. Welcome to the reality of grace.

Are you truly saying Jesus' blood -- the blood of the New Covenant -- doesn't cover sins committed across all time?

Where's your theology, anyway?

You haven't produced one scripture which says the New Covenant has begun, nor that it's for Gentiles. Yet, you continue to deceive people by pretending these things are true by talking around the facts.

I have. You haven't produced one Scripture seriously questioning them, either.

"This cup is the new covenant in my blood." 1 Cor 11:25 (to Gentiles about unity in the Body of Christ)

And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. Mt 26:27-28

This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel. Eph 3:6

[it's the same body -- and the Supper institutes the new covenant with this same body]

our sufficiency is from God, who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.2 Cor 3:6

Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. Gal 4:24-26

For where a covenant is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. For a covenant 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. Heb 9:16-18

Now may the God of peace who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep, by the blood of the eternal covenant, equip you with everything good that you may do his will, working in us that which is pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen. Heb 13:20-21
​

 

[ddub85]

@ heymikey

I challenged you to cite other places in Scripture where Isaac's connection with us is "repeated over and over again" weeks ago.

Isaac is a "child of the promise". That is our connection to Isaac, that is Isaac's connection to us. That promise of Isaac's is repeated over and over and over again in the Bible. Are you blind sir?

You say it's not an allegory. Yet Paul flatly states it is.

Paul NEVER says his statement that "we, like Isaac" is allegory, nor did he mean it was allegorical. That is surely untrue.

It also never says God is three Persons, but the truth is clear from the statements Scripture makes.

But the truth is clear. However, what you're saying about the New Covenant, the truth is clear that you're incorrect. See the difference?

I've already cited 2 Cor 3, Gal 3, Gal 4, Jesus on the Lord's Supper in 1 Cor 11, and it goes on & on.

2Cor3 says NOTHING about being under the New Covenant, it speakes of being a "minister" of the New Covenant. Gal 3 and 4 DISPROVE what you're saying. Jesus says nothing about anyone being under the New Covenant in 1 Cor 11. You're only attempting to concoct a story, and attach God's name to it. If that weren't true, you'd present truth and not throw vague scriptures around, and pretend they say what you say.

But note why Jesus is considered the mediator of a new covenant:
For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God. 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. Heb 9:13-15

Jesus being mediator of a New Covenant in no way means we are under a New Covenant. The two don't equate. You, however, are attempting to equate them. That is called fabrication.

It's because Jesus is sanctifying us. The New Covenant is operating, because Jesus is sanctifying us!

Jesus was sanctifying long before you believe the New Covenant started. So clearly that can't be the case.

Hebrews restates this case, too.

Then why are you not listing the scripture(s)? Hmmm...

The Covenant has been started, on the death of the covenanter.

Another false statement that you made up. That IS NOT what the Bible says.

It's only by obsessing on the absence of a single particular statement that you could miss this.

Obsessing on an absent statement? If the statement is absent, then it's not what God said. You do realize that, don't you?

The passage above also says inheritance of eternal life is given because the New Covenant is mediated by Jesus.

Another false statement. The passage speakes of something yet to come, something they "may receive" as opposed to something they have "already received". So these people will receive some time in the future what Jesus is mediator of. That's what the scripture says.

You're not getting anywhere because you're simply reiterating the absence of a statement. The absence of a statement is not a statement about omitting it.

This is not only about the absence of a statement. This is about the absence of the Bible ever stating that we're under the New Covenant, or that the New Covenant is for Gentiles.

"We are presently made competent to be servants of a new covenant." 2 Cor 3:6

To be SERVANTS, not to be recipients. You are attempting to make the servants the recipients.

You're saying Jonah wasn't serving salvation to the repentant people of Nineveh? That "through you [Abraham] the nations will be blessed"?

Jonah wasn't a part of Nineveh, nor was he to be a part of their fate. He was there to "SERVE" them, to minister unto them.

It's a covenant promise Jonah was fulfilling.
And JONAH was part of the covenant! It's a PROVEN fact!
Nineveh might be questioned in your wild view of covenants. But JONAH?

Jonah was not a part of Nineveh's fate if they didn't repent. That is what Jonah ministered upon them. What strange tie to salvation you're concocting here, I don't know. But do what you will.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ddub85
The Bible says the New Covenant was "sanctioned", not begun. It NEVER says it was begun. You are saying that, and not the Bible. A prize fight is always "sanctioned" before the fight takes place. The Bible says "SANCTIONED", NOT BEGUN.

For a covenant 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. Heb 9:17-18
Since you know Greek, you only now need to be honest.

"First covenant inaugurated"-- see those three words in the scripture you quote? This says NOTHING about the New Covenant being inaugurated.

Amen. But you leave out the next verse in which Jesus says I won't drink it new with you UNTIL. Let's don't leave that out. That would be both irresponsible and dishonest.

Why no comment? Hmmm...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ddub85
????? Romans 5 says" the New Covenant covers sins committed across all time" ????? WHERE IS THAT IN ROMANS 5? You say it's good to conform to scripture, but you should at least quote scripture properly. This is a reach if ever there was one. This is an act of desperation.

Not desperate. It's just you don't want it to be clear.
Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Rom 5:18-21
What's it say? Where sin increased. Where'd sin increase? Where the Law came in. Welcome to the reality of grace.

Desperate. My friend, what you don't seem to understand is that grace was a promise to Abraham. It's the promise of the Old Covenant;

Rom 4:16 Therefore [it is] of faith, that [it might be] by grace; to the end the promise 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,

Jesus fulfilled this Old Covenant promise with His blood.

Welcome to the reality of grace.

Are you truly saying Jesus' blood -- the blood of the New Covenant -- doesn't cover sins committed across all time?
Where's your theology, anyway?

Are you truly saying that Jesus blood isn't for the Abrahamic Covenant, the covenant which brings us grace, the covenant which is the promise to Isaac, the same promise that we share with Isaac? Hmmm...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ddub85
You haven't produced one scripture which says the New Covenant has begun, nor that it's for Gentiles. Yet, you continue to deceive people by pretending these things are true by talking around the facts.

I have.

Then list them! By all means, list them!

You haven't produced one Scripture seriously questioning them, either.
"This cup is the new covenant in my blood." 1 Cor 11:25 (to Gentiles about unity in the Body of Christ)
And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. Mt 26:27-28

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.
You do a serious disservice when you leave the next verse out. You're attempting to change the context. "Until that day"... see that? No need to say more, as it nullifies what you're saying, and you know it.

This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel. Eph 3:6

"Partakers of the PROMISE"... what promise? The promise to Abraham, the promise that we, like Isaac, are a part of. That promise, mon ami, that promise.

[it's the same body -- and the Supper institutes the new covenant with this same body]

So the New Covenant began at the last supper according to you? I want to be clear before I respond. Is that what you're saying here?

our sufficiency is from God, who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.2 Cor 3:6

Ministers, not recipients. They're two different things.

Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. Gal 4:24-26

Isaac and us being a part of that promise isn't allegory, and isn't meant to be allegory by Paul.

For where a covenant is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. For a covenant 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. Heb 9:16-18

The Bible says "first covenant inaugurated", yet you're contending it says the New Covenant inaugurated. Read the scripture more carefully please.

Now may the God of peace who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep, by the blood of the eternal covenant, equip you with everything good that you may do his will, working in us that which is pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen. Heb 13:20-21

Do you think the blood of Jesus was for the Abrahamic Covenant as well? Let me know.

God Bless!

 

[heymikey80]

Isaac is a "child of the promise". That is our connection to Isaac, that is Isaac's connection to us. That promise of Isaac's is repeated over and over and over again in the Bible. Are you blind sir?

bait & switch. You said the connection with Isaac was repeated again & again.

It's not.

In fact, the connection is with Abraham. It is figuratively like Isaac. And Paul says so.

I'm not blind. But the theology you're espousing is myopic.

Paul NEVER says his statement that "we, like Isaac" is allegory, nor did he mean it was allegorical. That is surely untrue.

Yes he does. Your theology doesn't allow Paul to say what he flatly said: "But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. Now this may be interpreted allegorically" Gal 4:23-24

You've simply not told the truth.

But the truth is clear. However, what you're saying about the New Covenant, the truth is clear that you're incorrect. See the difference?

The truth is clear. And clearly your version is not the truth.

I don't need to go into minute detail here. It's clear at this point you've sprung off into a theology of your own making, with which few to none agree.

 

[ddub85]

@ heymikey

bait & switch. You said the connection with Isaac was repeated again & again.

IT IS!!! The connection is the PROMISE to Isaac, which is the same promise to us. It is repeated over and over and over and over again in the Bible, is it not? So there is no "bait and switch", it's as plain as day. The connection of the promise to Isaac is repeated over and over and over and over again.

It's not.
In fact, the connection is with Abraham. It is figuratively like Isaac. And Paul says so.

The connection is through Abraham, TO Isaac, and THAT is what Paul says. He's not saying it figuratively, because that statement is LITERAL. It's literally true. Do you disagree? If you do, then say so.

I'm not blind. But the theology you're espousing is myopic.

The theology I'm espousing is BIBLICAL, and what you're espousing is a man-made production. The proof in that statement is in the fact that I can show grace came under the Abrahamic Covenant, and there are NO SCRIPTURES... NOT ONE! that say we're under the New Covenant, or that say the New Covenant is for Gentiles. Add to that the fact that the law is given to the recipients of the New Covenant, and the law is NEVER given to Gentiles, and you have solid proof that we're NOT under the New Covenant.

And this scares you. I understand that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ddub85
Paul NEVER says his statement that "we, like Isaac" is allegory, nor did he mean it was allegorical. That is surely untrue.

Yes he does. Your theology doesn't allow Paul to say what he flatly said: "But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. Now this may be interpreted allegorically" Gal 4:23-24
You've simply not told the truth.

The truth is that Paul's statement isn't a part of his allegorical story. That's the simple truth that your theology won't allow you to admit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddub85
But the truth is clear. However, what you're saying about the New Covenant, the truth is clear that you're incorrect. See the difference?

The truth is clear. And clearly your version is not the truth.
I don't need to go into minute detail here. It's clear at this point you've sprung off into a theology of your own making, with which few to none agree.

Heymikey, THE BIBLE agrees. Is the law given through the New Covenant? Yes. Do Gentiles have the law? No. Since that is factual, then it's clear that Gentiles aren't under the New Covenant.

Were Gentiles included in the Abrahamic Covenant? Yes. Would God do that, then not include Gentiles? No. So we Gentiles were included in the Abrahamic Covenant.

Does the Bible say anywhere that we're under the New Covenant? No. Does the Bible say anywhere that the New Covenant is for Gentiles? No. Does the Bible give the New Covenant exclusively to the Jews? Yes.

I could go on and on. But notice that you can't. Notice that you can't prove what you're saying with the Bible. That's why you're attempting to hide behind someone else who believes the same as you. You do that because the Bible doesn't stand behind you. If I'm wrong, then detail your responses and see if they can withstand the truth. Or better yet, begin to deal with these things I present to you.

God Bless!

 

[k4c]

Anyone can do as I did recently. Go to

http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=it is written&version1=9&searchtype=phrase&bookset=2

Where do you suppose all 63 of those statements came from?

I want to change my screen name to, Your Neighbor, that way everyone will have to love me...

 

[heymikey80]

IT IS!!! The connection is the PROMISE to Isaac, which is the same promise to us. It is repeated over and over and over and over again in the Bible, is it not? So there is no "bait and switch", it's as plain as day. The connection of the promise to Isaac is repeated over and over and over and over again.

It still awaits delivery of that connection with citations -- citations that are not figurative, that are promises made to Isaac.

(hint: it's not repeated again & again.)

 

[ddub85]

@ heymikey

Quote:
Originally Posted by ddub85
IT IS!!! The connection is the PROMISE to Isaac, which is the same promise to us. It is repeated over and over and over and over again in the Bible, is it not? So there is no "bait and switch", it's as plain as day. The connection of the promise to Isaac is repeated over and over and over and over again.

It still awaits delivery of that connection with citations -- citations that are not figurative, that are promises made to Isaac.
(hint: it's not repeated again & again.)

That connection has been delivered, and given over and over again. Here's one example from;

#142 2nd January 2008, 02:58 AM

"If my statements were shaking, you surely would have answered the questions I asked on the subject, rather than avoiding them and pretending like they're beneath you. I think it's quite obvious who's shaking. You realize that Isaac is under the Abrahamic Covenant, and that is our connection. So why not just answer the questions? You can't, can you? Here they are again;

How are we parties to the covenant? How is our connection to the covenant different from Isaac's? Is Isaac somehow NOT the seed of Abraham? Please explain. I'll wait."

Here's another question, another one of many, that you neglected;

"Why was this promise (Abrahamic) made to Gentiles, and never lived under by Gentiles?"

So many unanswered questions by you, and you dwell on a point that was made long ago, one that hasn't changed or waivered. You're attempting to hold on to anything you can hold on to that will release you from this discussion. It's time to face the truth.

God Bless!