The Rule of faith and practice is not scripture "alone"

[LoveofTruth]

Nope. Two totally different books of the Bible. In Luke the Greek word is used in the sense of "covenant" and it is translated as "covenant" in many Bibles. In Hebrews it is used in sense of a "written will" and the word is translated as "will" in many Bibles.

But I'll give you credit for some nice cherry-picking.

Have a nice day.

Nope,

same Greek word in both cases in Lake and Matthew As In Hebrews 9

from 1303; properly, a disposition, i.e. (specially) a contract (especially a devisory will):--covenant, testament.

and in Matthew 28:26

Matthew 26:28. For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.”

Same Greek

from 1303; properly, a disposition, i.e. (specially) a contract (especially a devisory will):--covenant, testament

So you can safely reject any notion that Jesus meant to drink his literal blood and that the statement about his body and blood was a figure or shadow of the reality after his death


And Hebrews 9 is talking about Jesus she’d blood for remission of sins

15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testaments, that by means of death, for the redemption ofthe transgressions that we're 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 itis of no strength at all while the testator liveth.18 Where upon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to allthe people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all thepeople, 20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. 21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.22 And almost all things areby the law purged withblood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. 23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: 25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest enter eith into the holy place every year with blood of others; 26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world:but now once in the end ofthe world hath he appearedto put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 And as it is appointed unto me once to die, but after this the judgment: 28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.


And this one verse also says it all

Hebrews 9:22. And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.”

until blood was shed the testament was not in effect

 

[Swag365]

Nope,

same Greek word in both cases in Lake and Matthew As In Hebrews 9

from 1303; properly, a disposition, i.e. (specially) a contract (especially a devisory will):--covenant, testament.

and in Matthew 28:26

Matthew 26:28. For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.”

Same Greek

from 1303; properly, a disposition, i.e. (specially) a contract (especially a devisory will):--covenant, testament

So you can safely reject any notion that Jesus meant to drink his literal blood and that the statement about his body and blood was a figure or shadow of the reality after his death


And Hebrews 9 is talking about Jesus she’d blood for remission of sins

15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testaments, that by means of death, for the redemption ofthe transgressions that we're 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 itis of no strength at all while the testator liveth.18 Where upon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to allthe people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all thepeople, 20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. 21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.22 And almost all things areby the law purged withblood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. 23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: 25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest enter eith into the holy place every year with blood of others; 26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world:but now once in the end ofthe world hath he appearedto put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 And as it is appointed unto me once to die, but after this the judgment: 28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.


And this one verse also says it all

Hebrews 9:22. And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.”

until blood was shed the testament was not in effect

Well obviously it is the same Greek word. That is why I wrote "the Greek word." The same word can have different meanings in different contexts. Have you opened a dictionary recently?

In the verse you cited the word is used to refer to a written will (note that the definition you posted includes both variants "will" and "covenant", and that "will" is used in many Bible translations). Read the ESV:

15 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. 16 For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. 17 For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive. 18 Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood. 19 For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20 saying, “This is the blood of the covenant that God commanded for you.” 21 And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship. 22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.​

Read the verse. It says "testator" in your translation and "the one who made it" in the ESV. Do you know what a "testator" is? It is a person who drafts a written will. Look it up. St. Paul is drawing a loose comparison between written wills and the new/old covenants, in the same way that he often draws loose comparisons in his writing. You can understand it better by reading the more modern translation.

And there was no "death of the testator (the one who made it)" for the first testament/covenant referred to in verse 18, so your interpretation of the text makes no sense at all.

You are using convoluted leaps of logic to impose your view on a book of the Bible written by a completely different author. It is one of the worst instances of cherry-picking that I have seen, to be frank.

And I don't think you are understanding the difference between a will being made an a will taking effect. Obviously one cannot write a will after he is dead. A valid will is made as soon as the testator writes it, but it only takes effect when the testator dies. That is, the heirs cannot take the testator's property until he dies, but the will itself has already been made. Likewise many valid covenants/testaments/agreement are made, but only take effect when certain conditions are met. A testament can be made today, but come into effect tomorrow, so the whole crux of your argument is pretty pointless.

You are not going to convince anyone other than yourself with that argument. Have a nice day.

 

[LoveofTruth]

Well obviously it is the same Greek word. That is why I wrote "the Greek word." The same word can have different meanings in different contexts. Have you opened a dictionary recently?

In the verse you cited the word is used to refer to a written will (note that the definition you posted includes both variants "will" and "covenant", and that "will" is used in many Bible translations). Read the ESV:

15 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. 16 For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. 17 For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive. 18 Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood. 19 For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20 saying, “This is the blood of the covenant that God commanded for you.” 21 And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship. 22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.​

Read the verse. It says "testator" in your translation and "the one who made it" in the ESV. Do you know what a "testator" is? It is a person who drafts a written will. Look it up. St. Paul is drawing a loose comparison between written wills and the new/old covenants, in the same way that he often draws loose comparisons in his writing. You can understand it better by reading the more modern translation.

And there was no "death of the testator (the one who made it)" for the first testament/covenant referred to in verse 18, so your interpretation of the text makes no sense at all.

You are using convoluted leaps of logic to impose your view on a book of the Bible written by a completely different author. It is one of the worst instances of cherry-picking that I have seen, to be frank.

And I don't think you are understanding the difference between a will being made an a will taking effect. Obviously one cannot write a will after he is dead. A valid will is made as soon as the testator writes it, but it only takes effect when the testator dies. That is, the heirs cannot take the testator's property until he dies, but the will itself has already been made. Likewise many valid covenants/testaments/agreement are made, but only take effect when certain conditions are met. A testament can be made today, but come into effect tomorrow, so the whole crux of your argument is pretty pointless.

You are not going to convince anyone other than yourself with that argument. Have a nice day.

No I use the KJV only and the word testament refers to the New Testament or covenant.

the point is that Jesus hadn’t died yet or shed his blood so the “this is my blood...shed” hadn’t happened yet and the New Testament was not there yet. Also the Jews were not to drink literal blood God forbid it. It is a spiritual reality of the New Testament

 

[Swag365]

No I use the KJV only and the word testament refers to the New Testament or covenant.

Who cares what you only use? Nobody else is bound to that.

the point is that Jesus hadn’t died yet or shed his blood so the “this is my blood...shed” hadn’t happened yet and the New Testament was not there yet. Also the Jews were not to drink literal blood God forbid it. It is a spiritual reality of the New Testament

Your argument doesn't even work for the KJV because it uses the word "testator" and a "testator" is a person who has drafted a will.

Testator - Wikipedia

A testator (/tɛsˈteɪtɔːr/) is a person who has written and executed a last will and testament that is in effect at the time of his/her death.[1] It is any "person who makes a will."[2]​

As for the word "shed" that does not help you either. The word is translated as "pours" in most Bible translations. Even if we stick with the word "shed" it does not require death. People "shed tears" all the time" without dying. If our Lord's blood is in the cup it has been "poured" "shed" or whatever other verb you want to use.

Your argument simply does not work. It is not persuasive. Have a nice day.

 

[LoveofTruth]

Who cares what you only use? Nobody else is bound to that.

Your argument doesn't even work for the KJV because it uses the word "testator" and a "testator" is a person who has drafted a will.

Testator - Wikipedia

A testator (/tɛsˈteɪtɔːr/) is a person who has written and executed a last will and testament that is in effect at the time of his/her death.[1] It is any "person who makes a will."[2]​

As for the word "shed" that does not help you either. The word is translated as "pours" in most Bible translations. Even if we stick with the word "shed" it does not require death. People "shed tears" all the time" without dying. If our Lord's blood is in the cup it has been "poured" "shed" or whatever other verb you want to use.

Your argument simply does not work. It is not persuasive. Have a nice day.

It works perfectly and all should use the only bible for English , the KJV . But that’s a 45 hour talk , maybe for another day.
But the word “testament” in both cases refers to Jesus shed blood. This shed blood happened only at Calvert and not until then. And without the shedding of blood there is no remission.
We see that Hebrews and Matthew and Luke speak of Jesus shed blood on the cross as the sacrifice for don as the text clearly show.

Hebrews 9:14. How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?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....28. So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.”

 

[Swag365]

It works perfectly and all should use the only bible for English , the KJV.

Nonsense.

But the word “testament” in both cases refers to Jesus shed blood. This shed blood happened only at Calvert and not until then. And without the shedding of blood there is no remission.
We see that Hebrews and Matthew and Luke speak of Jesus shed blood on the cross as the sacrifice for don as the text clearly show.

You still offer no response to the word "testator" in the KJV version. It completely refutes your interpretation and you have no response for it, other than to ignore the problem.

Verse 15 refers to the new covenant (obviously) but verse 15 does not support your argument. Your argument is that a covenant cannot be made until a death occurs, but verse 15 teaches no such thing.

Because verse 15 teaches no such thing, you initially attempted to rely on verses 16 and 17 to support your argument. But verses 16 and 17 do not refer to the new covenant. They refer to a written will. That is why the word "testator" occurs in the KJV, which is a word that is only used with respect to the drafter of a will. St. Paul is drawing a loose comparison between a written will and the new/old covenants in the passage that you recite. He is comparing wills and covenants in the different verses.

It is explained right here at note 16 of the Protestant NIV study Bible buddy. Why can't you understand it?

 

[LoveofTruth]

Who cares what you only use? Nobody else is bound to that.

Your argument doesn't even work for the KJV because it uses the word "testator" and a "testator" is a person who has drafted a will.

Testator - Wikipedia

A testator (/tɛsˈteɪtɔːr/) is a person who has written and executed a last will and testament that is in effect at the time of his/her death.[1] It is any "person who makes a will."[2]​

As for the word "shed" that does not help you either. The word is translated as "pours" in most Bible translations. Even if we stick with the word "shed" it does not require death. People "shed tears" all the time" without dying. If our Lord's blood is in the cup it has been "poured" "shed" or whatever other verb you want to use.

Your argument simply does not work. It is not persuasive. Have a nice day.

It works perfectly and all should use the only bible for English , the KJV . But that’s a 45 hour talk , maybe for another day.
But the word “testament” in both cases refers to Jesus shed blood. This shed blood happened only at Calvert and not until then. And without the shedding of blood there is no remission.
We see that Hebrews and Matthew and Luke speak of Jesus shed blood on the cross as the sacrifice for don as the text clearly show.

 

[LoveofTruth]

Who cares what you only use? Nobody else is bound to that.

Your argument doesn't even work for the KJV because it uses the word "testator" and a "testator" is a person who has drafted a will.

Testator - Wikipedia

A testator (/tɛsˈteɪtɔːr/) is a person who has written and executed a last will and testament that is in effect at the time of his/her death.[1] It is any "person who makes a will."[2]​

As for the word "shed" that does not help you either. The word is translated as "pours" in most Bible translations. Even if we stick with the word "shed" it does not require death. People "shed tears" all the time" without dying. If our Lord's blood is in the cup it has been "poured" "shed" or whatever other verb you want to use.

Your argument simply does not work. It is not persuasive. Have a nice day.

It works perfectly and all should use the only bible for English , the KJV . But that’s a 45 hour talk , maybe for another day.
But the word “testament” in both cases refers to Jesus shed blood. This shed blood happened only at Calvery and not until then. And without the shedding of blood there is no remission.
We see that Hebrews and Matthew and Luke speak of Jesus shed blood on the cross as the sacrifice for sin as the text clearly show.

Who cares what you only use? Nobody else is bound to that.

Your argument doesn't even work for the KJV because it uses the word "testator" and a "testator" is a person who has drafted a will.

Testator - Wikipedia

A testator (/tɛsˈteɪtɔːr/) is a person who has written and executed a last will and testament that is in effect at the time of his/her death.[1] It is any "person who makes a will."[2]​

As for the word "shed" that does not help you either. The word is translated as "pours" in most Bible translations. Even if we stick with the word "shed" it does not require death. People "shed tears" all the time" without dying. If our Lord's blood is in the cup it has been "poured" "shed" or whatever other verb you want to use.

Your argument simply does not work. It is not persuasive. Have a nice day.

Who cares what you only use? Nobody else is bound to that.

Your argument doesn't even work for the KJV because it uses the word "testator" and a "testator" is a person who has drafted a will.

Testator - Wikipedia

A testator (/tɛsˈteɪtɔːr/) is a person who has written and executed a last will and testament that is in effect at the time of his/her death.[1] It is any "person who makes a will."[2]​

As for the word "shed" that does not help you either. The word is translated as "pours" in most Bible translations. Even if we stick with the word "shed" it does not require death. People "shed tears" all the time" without dying. If our Lord's blood is in the cup it has been "poured" "shed" or whatever other verb you want to use.

Your argument simply does not work. It is not persuasive. Have a nice day.

You quote Wikipedia for your meaning in Greek????
The word testator means

“middle voice from 1223 and 5087; to put apart, i.e. (figuratively) dispose (by assignment, compact, or bequest):--appoint, make, testator”

 

[Swag365]

It works perfectly and all should use the only bible for English , the KJV . But that’s a 45 hour talk , maybe for another day.
But the word “testament” in both cases refers to Jesus shed blood. This shed blood happened only at Calvert and not until then. And without the shedding of blood there is no remission.
We see that Hebrews and Matthew and Luke speak of Jesus shed blood on the cross as the sacrifice for don as the text clearly show.




You quote Wikipedia for your meaning in Greek????
The word testator means

“middle voice from 1223 and 5087; to put apart, i.e. (figuratively) dispose (by assignment, compact, or bequest):--appoint, make, testator”

In verse 18, what is the "first testament"?

Who is the "testator" of the first testament who died in order for the first testament to take force?

 

[LoveofTruth]

In verse 18, what is the "first testament"?

Who is the "testator" of the first testament who died in order for the first testament to take force?

The blood of animals was the death in the first testament

 

[Swag365]

The blood of animals was the death in the first testament

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.
​

So animals were the testator of the first covenant?

Did God make the first covenant, or did animals make the first covenant? You tell me.

Friend, it should be obvious to you now that your interpretation of the text is nonsensical.

 

[pescador]

It works perfectly and all should use the only bible for English , the KJV . But that’s a 45 hour talk , maybe for another day.
But the word “testament” in both cases refers to Jesus shed blood. This shed blood happened only at Calvert and not until then. And without the shedding of blood there is no remission.
We see that Hebrews and Matthew and Luke speak of Jesus shed blood on the cross as the sacrifice for don as the text clearly show.




You quote Wikipedia for your meaning in Greek????
The word testator means

“middle voice from 1223 and 5087; to put apart, i.e. (figuratively) dispose (by assignment, compact, or bequest):--appoint, make, testator”

Does your (ancient) King James Bible say that Jesus' blood was shed at Calvert? Did He lose shekels on a bad investment?

And what is "the sacrifice for don"? Don who?

Why not 1) use a modern translation and 2) review your message before posting?

 

[LoveofTruth]

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.
​

So animals were the testator of the first covenant?

Did God make the first covenant, or did animals make the first covenant? You tell me.

Friend, it should be obvious to you now that your interpretation of the text is nonsensical.

Hebrews 9:18. Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.19. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,20. Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.”

 

[pescador]

Hebrews 9:18. Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.19. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,20. Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.”

Since this is from the Old Covenant (first testament) it has no bearing on Christians.

BTW, here is that section of Scripture in English: "This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood. When Moses had proclaimed every command of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. He said, “This is the blood of the [old] covenant, which God has commanded you to keep.”

 

[Swag365]

Hebrews 9:18. Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.19. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,20. Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.”

You can cut and paste Scripture. Congratulations.

Let me give you some more Scripture:

"This is my body" and "This is my blood."

Your argument remains refuted. You have no response to what I wrote.

 

[LoveofTruth]

You can cut and paste Scripture. Congratulations.

Let me give you some more Scripture:

"This is my body" and "This is my blood."

Your argument remains refuted. You have no response to what I wrote.

Everything I said is true it exposes your error clearly. You just don’t want to admit it because then you would have to leave your religious organization and admit their error.

Jesus said (before he actually died on the cross and shed his blood

Matthew 26:28. For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.”

What blood “is”shed at that moment?
And if that was shed right then why did he need to go to the cross and actually shed his blood ?

your doctrine confounds itself.
Jesus was speaking figuratively and prophetically of his death on the cross for our sins in the future and he gave the Passover meal it’s true spiritual meaning. .

and I showed That the New Testament is only in affect when he died and actually shed his blood.

Aldo they were not to drink literal blood.


And right after verse 28 Jesus showed that he was not talking about literal blood when he said it was the fruit of the vine.

Matthew 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.”

This shows that the fruit of the vine was figuratively his blood as Jesus said.

 

[Swag365]

Everything I said is true it exposes your error clearly. You just don’t want to admit it because then you would have to leave your religious organization and admit their error.

Jesus said (before he actually died on the cross and shed his blood

Matthew 26:28. For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.”

What blood “is”shed at that moment?
And if that was shed right then why did he need to go to the cross and actually shed his blood ?

your doctrine confounds itself.
Jesys was speaking figuratively and prophetically of his death on the cross for our sins in the future and he gave the Passover meal it’s true spiritual meaning. .

and I showed That the New Testament is only in affect when he died and actually shed his blood.

Aldo they were not to drink literal blood.


And right after verse 28 Jesus showed that he was not talking about literal blood when he said it was the fruit of the vine.

Matthew 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.”

This shows that the fruit of the vine was figuratively his blood as Jesus said.

You are switching to different arguments now. Obviously that is because your last argument was proven false. Have a nice day.

 

[LoveofTruth]

You are switching to different arguments now. Obviously that is because your last argument was proven false. Have a nice day.

Both arguments line up my bible uses the word “testament” in Hebrews and this refers to the New Testament and the Old Testament . It doesn’t say the old will??? But the Old Testament.

Hebrews 9:18. Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.”

it doesn’t say first will


But I showed clearly by Jesus words that the fruit of the vine is the literal drunk not drinking literal blood .


Your argument is exposed in both sections.

you cannot answer the fruit of the vine part and then try to distract and say, I am switching discussions.

 

[LoveofTruth]

You are switching to different arguments now. Obviously that is because your last argument was proven false. Have a nice day.

And right after verse 28 Jesus showed that he was not talking about literal blood when he said it was the fruit of the vine.

Matthew 26:29. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of thisfruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.”

This shows that the fruit of the vine was figuratively his blood as Jesus said.

He did not say “until I drink my literal blood with you “

 

[Swag365]

Both arguments line up my bible uses the word “testament” in Hebrews and this refers to the New Testament and the Old Testament . It doesn’t say the old will??? But the Old Testament.

Hebrews 9:18. Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.”

it doesn’t say first will


But I showed clearly by Jesus words that the fruit of the vine is the literal drunk not drinking literal blood .


Your argument is exposed in both sections.

you cannot answer the fruit of the vine part and do think I am switching discussions.

And right after verse 28 Jesus showed that he was not talking about literal blood when he said it was the fruit of the vine.

Matthew 26:29. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of thisfruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.”

This shows that the fruit of the vine was figuratively his blood as Jesus said.

He did not say “until I drink my literal blood with you “

Have a nice day.