- Jun 22, 2007
- 27,338
- 7,348
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
"Covenants: The Backbone of the Bible | BibleProject™" Covenants: The Backbone of the Bible | BibleProject™
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
"Covenants: The Backbone of the Bible | BibleProject™" Covenants: The Backbone of the Bible | BibleProject™Some men have, and some have not.
Does the site have a video on the teaching of dispensationalism as well? Covenant theology and dispensationalism are two man-made system on how to understand the bible."Covenants: The Backbone of the Bible | BibleProject™" Covenants: The Backbone of the Bible | BibleProject™
God creates the covenants. Man can react by agreeing to those covenants - or by saying no, rejecting the covenant.
In Deuteronomy 31:9-13, the requirement stipulated by Moses is for the leaders of Israel to confirm on a 7 year cycle that the children of Israel agreed to the Mt. Sinai covenant that God created - when they said "we do" to the covenant.
There is no such requirement in the new covenant. Moses himself was not the Mt. Sinai covenant. Differently, Jesus Himself is the new covenant.
Please point out a lie there.
I think you are confusing the word confirmed with validated. So, the question you are asking is flawed in it's construct. And the subject matter of Daniel 9:27 is confirmed for 7 years. Which you did not include in your question.You didn't answer the question, so here it is again:
Do you believe that the New Covenant is only ever preached, but never confirmed in those who believe and accept it?
No....because that isn't a comparison of theology. For almost 1200 years the Church was in unity about this. The early church was adamant about seeking the Holy Spirit in order to have Truth to be their guide (that's how it was decided what were heresies and they were rejected). This was the belief of our apostolic early church. Covenants are the foundation of our faith.Does the site have a video on the teaching of dispensationalism as well? Covenant theology and dispensationalism are two man-made system on how to understand the bible.
I am pretty sure that site is covenant theology based. And is opposed to dispensationalism. They are both man-made systems of how to understand the bible.No....because that isn't a comparison of theology. For almost 1200 years the Church was in unity about this. The early church was adamant about seeking the Holy Spirit in order to have Truth to be their guide (that's how it was decided what were heresies and they were rejected). This was the belief of our apostolic early church. Covenants are the foundation of our faith.
Christianity = covenant theology.I am pretty sure that site is covenant theology
He came, Douggg. Jesus....the Messiah.The issue is who is the prince who shall come. And what is the covenant he confirms for 7 years.
Covenant theology - WikipediaChristianity = covenant theology.
There was no other opposing view until the last few hundred years. Now.....christianity is all over the place.
The problem is with your interpretation of confirm the covenant for 7 years, is that Ezekiel 39:21-29, Jesus Himself speaking in the text, indicates what the 7 years are, and when.He came, Douggg. Jesus....the Messiah.
There are two actions in that passage: confirming a covenant and destroying the city and the sanctuary. It's "the people " (plural) that actively destroyed Jerusalem. So disagreeing over "the Prince" is a side issue.
IOW....."people" cannot be the "He" that confirmed the covenant. A singular pronoun isn't used for "people".
Daniel 9:26
And the people......will destroy the city and the sanctuary.
I think you are confusing the word confirmed with validated. So, the question you are asking is flawed in it's construct. And the subject matter of Daniel 9:27 is confirmed for 7 years. Which you did not include in your question.
The New Covenant will be validated in those who believe and accept it when the resurrection/rapture takes place.
The issue is who is the prince who shall come. And what is the covenant that he confirms for 7 years.
How does that verse disprove that the belief of those of the New Covenant in Christ will not be validated in the resurrection/rapture?Your claim that "The New Covenant will be validated in those who believe and accept it when the resurrection/rapture takes place." is disproven by Scripture below.
Hebrews 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.
No, you haven't. The only thing that you have proved is that you don't understand Daniel 9:26-27, who the prince who shall come is and what the covenant is that he will confirm for 7 years is.I've grammatically (corroborated Scripturally and historically) proven that the prince who shall come is Messiah, and therefore that the everlasting covenant which He confirmed beginning with the Jews for seven years, is the New Covenant in His Blood.
How does that verse disprove that the belief of those of the New Covenant in Christ will not be validated in the resurrection/rapture?
No, you haven't. The only thing that you have proved is that you don't understand Daniel 9:26-27, who the prince who shall come is and what the covenant is that he will confirm for 7 years is.
That is not the issue.Does Jesus mediate invalid covenants?
The messiah cutoff is before the destruction of the temple and city in the text - grammatically and historically a fact.Awaiting your grammatical disproof.
That is not the issue.
The messiah cutoff is before the destruction of the temple and city in the text - grammatically and historically a fact.
The prince who shall come is of those people - the Romans.
Jesus was not a Roman, but a Jew. A fact.
In the KJV, the messiah cutoff is before the destruction of the temple and city in the text - grammatically, .... and historically a fact.Awaiting your grammatical disproof of my grammatical proof.
Complete with referents.
Surely you know of the judgment of the nations - also called the sheep and goat judgment.If you are calling those who do not agree with you goats, come on out with it...
.
And there is where we differ. I believe the covenant in question is in Dan. 9:27. I don't think that is a covenant of God. I think the Beast of Revelation confirms this covenant.Maybe "a" covenant.....but they can't confirm God's covenants with humanity (and that is the topic of discussion).
Surely you know of the judgment of the nations - also called the sheep and goat judgment.
The question was asked, if someone is NOT a part of the millennial Reign on earth, then where else could they be? From what Jesus said, the goats will not be there.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?