Have a good day Walls with an s.
Senior Member
Have a good day Walls with an s.
Grand Master
this scripture that as quoted, is all about Holy Spirit and Christ.
EZEKIEL 36 [24] For I will take you from among the heathen, and GATHER YOU OUT OF ALL COUNTRIES, AND WILL BRING YOU INTO YOUR OWN LAND. [25] Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. [26] A NEW HEART also will I give you, and A NEW SPIRIT will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. [27] And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. [28] And ye shall dwell in the land that i gave to your fathers; and YE SHALL BE MY PEOPLE, AND I WILL BE YOUR GOD.
1Co 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
Joh_15:3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you
Joh_13:10 Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all.
1Co_6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
2Co_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.
Rev_1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
the new Spirit spoke of is the Holy Spirit. but we are all free to see what we see in scripture.
Grand Master
Christ didnt baptize while walking around in flesh.
when he was pierced on cross "water" came out
Eze_36:25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.
Eph_5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
then notice after water came out of his side not long after the Holy Spirit came to apostles.
Posting Freak
Interesting how everyone skips over this. How is it that we are born with something we need again later? We walk according to the course of this world, in the lust and desires of our flesh and minds. We darken the hearts we are born with and need to be made new. Of course with a better covenant, born of the Spirit, with a better law, in that we can do what the first law could not. It's error to think the new birth is the first time 'his law is written on our heart'. If that were true, no one would be guilty of breaking the law, and we know we all are. For that to happen we had to have had the law on our heart.Originally Posted by Ceegen
Senior Member
No its not. Its about the gathering of Gods people to the 1000yr period of rest {bring you into your own land}. Its not yet happened. It will be done in the twinkling of an eye.
Coffee Break
Of course Jesus didn't shed his blood only for the Jews. But Jeremiah 31 is not about Jewish salvation; it's about the successful establishment of the covenant relationship between God and the nation of Israel. Notice how the prophecy begins with the house of Judah and the house of Israel? And ever notice how the prophet makes reference to a previous covenant which these houses broke?
Grand Master
Rom 9:7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
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.
Rom 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
Rom 8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
Rom 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
this is the promise below
Act_1:4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.
Posting Freak
Heb 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.
Heb 8:8 For he finds fault with them when he says: "Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,
Heb 8:9 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. For they did not continue in my covenant, and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord.
Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Heb 8:11 And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest.
Heb 8:12 For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more."
--
Heb 8:13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
We have to understand it is only true for some "Jews" now while Gentiles are included. The complete fulfillment spoke of in Jeremiah has not happened. Verified in the NT by both Paul and the author (ultimately the Spirit) of Hebrews.
Posting Freak
Yes he did.
Joh 3:22 After this Jesus and his disciples went into the Judean countryside, and he remained there with them and was baptizing.
Joh 4:1 Now when Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John
Joh 4:2 (although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples),
Grand Master
i think that makes the point in john 4 that when Christ was in flesh going out he had his disciples baptizing. He says jesus did not baptize, but ONLY his disciples. he makes a point of saying that, if jesus had baptized that statement would be false.
on john 3:22 thats him hangin with disciples and them baptising. it reads a lil dif in some versions, (he tarried, and baptised) but he was having them baptize he just wasnt doing it.
Coffee Break
The same would be true if the New Covenant were put into effect in our future.
I suppose I wasn't clear earlier. I said Christ's blood was effective for both the salvation if individuals, Jews and Gentiles alike who repent and believe, AND to reconcile God with Israel so that God might make a new covenant with Israel. I'm not saying it's either one or the other; I'm saying both are true.The new covenant has very much to do with Christ's shed blood for the remission of sins. It is His shed blood that provides salvation. Is that not what the covenant God made with Abraham is all about? Perhaps you should have read a bit further in Galatians 3.
Yes, I see the same thing as you do. There is a connection between all of those things. No doubt about it. BUT the New Covenant isn't strictly and simply about salvation. Yes, God is going to save those in Israel at that time. Why? God will save them because they have repented and believe that Jesus Christ is Lord -- same as any believer. BUT, this salvation event takes place within the context of God's overt move in human history to vindicate his name.What does being part of the new covenant do for someone? Provides salvation and the remission of sins through the blood of Jesus Christ (Matt 26:27-28, Heb 8-10). What does being part of the covenant God made with Abraham do for someone? Provides salvation and the remission of sins through the blood of Jesus Christ. With this in mind how can anyone not see a connection between the new covenant and the covenant God made with Abraham?
Let me propose a hypothetical scenario that illustrates how I see it. Suppose a group of Christians, both Jew and Gentile, decided to move to a particular spot on the earth. No indigenous peoples would be displaced. The place would be empty of people but rich in natural resources and good for growing crops. The place would support a couple of million Christians including their families and any livestock they might own. And in the process of living in a very large community of Christians, the people make laws and courts and fire departments and banks, and all the other stuff we need. The place would be just like any other place. The only difference between that place and any other place on earth is the fact that the place is exclusively Christian.
What will happen in the rest of the world? Even though the rest of the world will contain other Christians, that particular nation will come to be known as an exclusively Christian nation. (I'm not talking about the US here. I'm inventing a fictional place to make a point.) And according to Jesus, the world will come to hate that place and the people that live there because they are disciples of Christ. They might even attack that nation with armies or attempt to bankrupt that nation somehow.
The point of this illustration is this. As soon as a people gather together to form an exclusive place where all the people love, fear, and worship God and Jesus Christ his son, and as soon as the place becomes known as God's place, the world will hate it and attack it just like they hate and attack individual Christians around the world. The only difference, again, is the fact that the attacks will be an overt display of the hatred of God. It's one thing for a country to persecute its Christian citizens simply because they are Christian (which is a very tragic occasion.) But it's quite another thing for a company of nations to attack an other nation, which the entire world knows is "God's nation."
If I understand the prophets correctly, this is the type of thing that will happen to Israel some day. The company of nations around the world will one day associate the nation of Israel as "God's nation" and find a way or an excuse to attack her. But unlike the fictional Christian nation I proposed above, God has made a promise to protect the nation of Israel, not for her sake, but for his own sake. If the company of nations attacks Israel, not because she has done wrong (she has) but simply because she represents Yahweh as opposed to Allah, then God will step in and dramatically prove to the world that Yahweh is God and not Allah. In the future, when the nation of Yahweh gets attacked by the nations of Allah, Yahweh will act overtly so that the entire world will know that Yahweh is God and Allah is not.
But before THAT event takes place, Yahweh is going to enter into a pact (covenant) with Israel, so that the association between Israel and Yahweh is clear and unambiguous. By this New Covenant, in which an entire nation turns to Yahweh in faith, the Nations of Allah will know that Israel and Yahweh are united. And so, to attack Yahweh is to worship Allah through an attack against Israel. And since Allah has set out to attack Yahweh overtly, by attacking Israel, Yahweh will defend himself by saving Israel and destroying the nations of Allah.
How's that for an extended answer?
Posting Freak
Jesus was making disciples, is what it says. It's very simple. I don't know why you even mentioned it, but what you said was false. John had disciples. It was authoritative toward Messiah's kingdom.
Joh 1:25 And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?
You did not run around making disciples by baptism without authority in the Messiah's kingdom. If you think Jesus' disciples were making disciples by baptism unto themselves and not for Christ, under Christ's authority, you are wrong. Jesus was not just hangin. As the text says, he was making disciples by baptism. This is not the baptism that saves, being of water. The baptism that saves hadn't happened to anyone yet, and couldn't, until Christ was baptized into death.
Even so, come, Lord Jesus
And I'm saying there is no scripture which teaches that Christ shed His blood for the purpose of reconciling God with the nation of Israel. Scripture teaches that Christ shed His blood in order to make a way for the sins of individuals to be washed away and to allow for those individuals to obtain salvation and eternal life. Show me one scripture that says He shed His blood in order to reconcile the nation of Israel with God.
Yes, it is! Every time it is talked about in scripture it speaks of the new covenant providing a way for the remission of sins (the sins of individuals). Just read Matt 26:27-28 and Hebrews 8-10 and you should be able to see that.Yes, I see the same thing as you do. There is a connection between all of those things. No doubt about it. BUT the New Covenant isn't strictly and simply about salvation.
What does that mean? What scripture are you using to support this view?Yes, God is going to save those in Israel at that time. Why? God will save them because they have repented and believe that Jesus Christ is Lord -- same as any believer. BUT, this salvation event takes place within the context of God's overt move in human history to vindicate his name.
Well, I think it's quite obvious by now that I disagree with your understanding of the prophets. And I believe the NT authors do as well. They do not ever speak of a scenario like what you're talking about here. Why would that be the case if what you're saying is true? Why would the type of scenario that you're talking about never be portrayed in the NT if that is what was going to happen? The NT speaks of all believers being one in Christ. It has nothing to do with geographical location, it has everything to do with being one in Christ wherever we are in the world.Let me propose a hypothetical scenario that illustrates how I see it. Suppose a group of Christians, both Jew and Gentile, decided to move to a particular spot on the earth. No indigenous peoples would be displaced. The place would be empty of people but rich in natural resources and good for growing crops. The place would support a couple of million Christians including their families and any livestock they might own. And in the process of living in a very large community of Christians, the people make laws and courts and fire departments and banks, and all the other stuff we need. The place would be just like any other place. The only difference between that place and any other place on earth is the fact that the place is exclusively Christian.
What will happen in the rest of the world? Even though the rest of the world will contain other Christians, that particular nation will come to be known as an exclusively Christian nation. (I'm not talking about the US here. I'm inventing a fictional place to make a point.) And according to Jesus, the world will come to hate that place and the people that live there because they are disciples of Christ. They might even attack that nation with armies or attempt to bankrupt that nation somehow.
The point of this illustration is this. As soon as a people gather together to form an exclusive place where all the people love, fear, and worship God and Jesus Christ his son, and as soon as the place becomes known as God's place, the world will hate it and attack it just like they hate and attack individual Christians around the world. The only difference, again, is the fact that the attacks will be an overt display of the hatred of God. It's one thing for a country to persecute its Christian citizens simply because they are Christian (which is a very tragic occasion.) But it's quite another thing for a company of nations to attack an other nation, which the entire world knows is "God's nation."
If I understand the prophets correctly, this is the type of thing that will happen to Israel some day.
I appreciate the time you took to respond but I just disagree with almost everything you said. Of course, that's nothing new.The company of nations around the world will one day associate the nation of Israel as "God's nation" and find a way or an excuse to attack her. But unlike the fictional Christian nation I proposed above, God has made a promise to protect the nation of Israel, not for her sake, but for his own sake. If the company of nations attacks Israel, not because she has done wrong (she has) but simply because she represents Yahweh as opposed to Allah, then God will step in and dramatically prove to the world that Yahweh is God and not Allah. In the future, when the nation of Yahweh gets attacked by the nations of Allah, Yahweh will act overtly so that the entire world will know that Yahweh is God and Allah is not.
But before THAT event takes place, Yahweh is going to enter into a pact (covenant) with Israel, so that the association between Israel and Yahweh is clear and unambiguous. By this New Covenant, in which an entire nation turns to Yahweh in faith, the Nations of Allah will know that Israel and Yahweh are united. And so, to attack Yahweh is to worship Allah through an attack against Israel. And since Allah has set out to attack Yahweh overtly, by attacking Israel, Yahweh will defend himself by saving Israel and destroying the nations of Allah.
How's that for an extended answer?
Coffee Break
If 2 + 2 = 4 then Luke 22:20 plus Jeremiah 31:31 equals Jesus shed his blood to bring reconciliation between Yahweh and Israel.
No, the New Covenant isn't strictly about salvation. All we need to do is read Jeremiah 31 to see that the New Covenant is more directly and more specifically concerned with the reconstitution of God's holy nation Israel in the land of promise, at which time Israel will begin to keep the Mosaic Law. Since Gentiles are NOT required to keep the Mosaic Law, the New Covenant will not apply to Gentiles. And again, the New Covenant is between God and the houses of Israel and Judah, not the individuals as such.Yes, it is! Every time it is talked about in scripture it speaks of the new covenant providing a way for the remission of sins (the sins of individuals). Just read Matt 26:27-28 and Hebrews 8-10 and you should be able to see that.
As a Christian I assume you are familiar with the Lord's prayer. The beginning of that prayer is a petition that God would make his name holy. Such a prayer assumes that God's name is not holy in some sense, otherwise why pray for something that is already in effect? The idea that God will restore his name, to make it holy, at a time when he also reconstitutes the nation of Israel, and causes them to keep Moses, is found in Ezekiel 36, which Paul referenced in Romans 2.What does that mean? What scripture are you using to support this view?
Sure they do. You just don't recognize it. For example, Paul writes a letter to the Galatians because false teachers came to the church of Galatia, teaching that a person must keep Moses in order to be saved. Where did these teachers get this idea and why was it believable or plausible? The reason why such a teaching was plausible such that the church in Galatia bought it was due to the promise God made to the nation of Israel through the prophet Jeremiah. If Jesus says that his blood will be the blood of the New Covenant, and if God is going to make the New Covenant with the houses of Judah and Israel, then it only stands to reason that in order for a person to be saved, he must enter one of those houses by circumcision.Well, I think it's quite obvious by now that I disagree with your understanding of the prophets. And I believe the NT authors do as well. They do not ever speak of a scenario like what you're talking about here.
Yes. Being in Christ has nothing to do with geographical location or race, nationality, gender, slave or free or whatever. That's true. And almost half of the New Testament argues this point. The entire books of Romans and Galatians are centered on this point. But ask yourself, why did Paul need to write the books of Romans and Galatians? He wrote them because he needed to teach his Jewish brethren that Gentiles were being brought into Christ apart from keeping Moses. This was a real issue at that time; Paul and the other apostles took the question and debate very seriously because unless they could answer the question according to the Old Testament, they could not claim to represent God.Why would that be the case if what you're saying is true? Why would the type of scenario that you're talking about never be portrayed in the NT if that is what was going to happen? The NT speaks of all believers being one in Christ. It has nothing to do with geographical location, it has everything to do with being one in Christ wherever we are in the world.
It's possible that Jesus and the Apostles simply wanted to start another religion. In which case, arguments about whether a man should be circumcised would be moot. If Jesus and the apostles were starting a new religion, then Paul wouldn't make his case from the OT or even care what his scriptures say about circumcision or keeping Moses. He wouldn't attempt or care to convince anyone that gentiles are grafted into a tree as "wild" olives, since all those in the new religion would be cultivated olives. If this were the case, all Paul would need to argue is that God has divorced his wife and has remarried. Circumcision is irrelevant in the new religion.
But Paul doesn't argue that. Rather, he argues that for a Jew's circumcision to count as circumcision, he needs to keep the law. He argues that if an uncircumcised man were to keep the law, his lack of circumcision would be considered as circumcision. He grants that being a Jew is an advantage and profitable, which is something he would never grant had he started a new religion. In a new religion, in which God is starting over, no person would have an advantage. And if Paul were creating a new religion, why did he still continue to practice his old one?
Well, at least you read it.I appreciate the time you took to respond but I just disagree with almost everything you said. Of course, that's nothing new.
Posting Freak
Correct. Covenants are by blood, and Jeremiah 31:31 is about Israel not Gentiles.
JFB Commentary
Jer 31:31
the days ... new covenant with ... Israel ... Judah — The new covenant is made with literal Israel and Judah, not with the spiritual Israel, that is, believers, except secondarily, and as grafted on the stock of Israel (Rom_11:16-27). For the whole subject of the thirtieth and thirty-first chapters is the restoration of the Hebrews (Jer_30:4, Jer_30:7, Jer_30:10, Jer_30:18; Jer_31:7, Jer_31:10, Jer_31:11, Jer_31:23, Jer_31:24, Jer_31:27, Jer_31:36). With the “remnant according to the election of grace” in Israel, the new covenant has already taken effect. But with regard to the whole nation, its realization is reserved for the last days, to which Paul refers this prophecy in an abridged form (Rom_11:27).
As I said (book of Hebrews, not Gentiles)
http://bibleforums.org/showthread.ph...69#post2877869
Heb 10:29 ...........the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified,
Heb 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.
Heb 13:20 ........through the blood of the everlasting covenant,
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks