Has the New Covenant started or is it still in the future?

[Trivalee]

Re: Has the New Covenant started or is it still in the future?

and you know this how? Didn't we go over this already? The promise to Abraham was to inherit and rule the earth. How do you know this isn't what they had in mind?

You could have had a better argument if you supported it with scripture. But what did the Jews at the time understood about the Messiah to come?

The Jews were acquainted with many of the prophecies about the Messiah, the chosen or “anointed one” as the word means in Hebrew. They firmly believed that the Messiah would be a strong and glorious earthly king who would deliver them from their Roman oppressors and form once again a great and independent Jewish kingdom. The wise men who came from the east seeking the newborn Jesus inquired at Jerusalem, “Where is He who has been born King of the Jews?” (Matt 2:1-2).

Even King Herod, who ruled Judea at the time, clearly understood that the Messiah the Jews expected was to be another king and thus a rival to him. The expectation that the Christ would be a king fit with their understanding that He would also be a descendant of David, the most famous of all the kings of Israel and the one by whom all other kings were measured.

When the people desired the appearance of “the Son of David,” they were hoping for the prophesied One who would restore the kingdom of Israel under the Davidic dynasty. At one point when Jesus miraculously fed a following of 5,000 men, they were convinced that He was “the Prophet who is to come into the world” (John 6:14). This is an allusion to Moses’ prophecy of “a Prophet like me” in Deut 18:15-19. The disciples of Jesus identified Jesus as this same Prophet, “Him of whom Moses in the law, and also the prophets, wrote—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph” (John 1:45).

And even after His death and resurrection, His disciples were still focused on the idea that He would restore the Davidic kingdom to Israel then. They asked Him, “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6). They didn’t yet understand all the pieces of the prophetic puzzle He was revealing to them.

the koh is this world and all in it

What is your proof?

[Trivalee]

Re: Has the New Covenant started or is it still in the future?

No, that's after the millennium and GWTJ, with the new heaven and earth.

See post #487.

I did not. I have said repeatedly -koh under Messiah's rule. The koh is past, present, and future, proven by the fact that Jesus said let the wheat and tares grow up together until I return, so it is your view that is not valid.

Sorry, you are not making any sense. See my rebuttal yesterday - no need to repeat what has already been posted.

[Jesuslovesus]

Re: Has the New Covenant started or is it still in the future?

The fact you are relying on the views expressed in a video by an unknown makes it more compelling for me not to pursue this further. Until you can present your own thoughts and opinion so that when you are called out for an error, you won't claim "hey, it's not my opinion...it's the video"!

I already shared my opinion, pretty sure our debate on the NC has been over almost 200 posts ago, I presented the video as a way to understand the Divisions of the Kingdoms, you seem to have got hung up on the throne because you didn't understand that it represented an idea.

[Trivalee]

Re: Has the New Covenant started or is it still in the future?

LOL
How do you explain the first church being Israeli if the koG was taken from them?
LOL

It's astounding, the things people believe. What this does is introduce a lot of false doctrine, like replacement theology. Shame, shame!

So the passage (Matt 21:43) where Jesus said the kingdom will be taken from unbelieving Israel and given to those who will bring forth fruit is a lie? The kingdom will be taken from the Jews who don't believe, not the who believe.

[Trivalee]

Re: Has the New Covenant started or is it still in the future?

Not to mention the nation that had fruit was Israel. Not all that are of Israel are Israel though, remember? Who is a jew? Blood, or behavior? It was taken from the leaders and given to the believers. Anything else is false doctrine. TO the Jew first, then Gentile. You have nothing to stand on.

You are just expounding junk doctrine. It's obvious you have no clue of what you're saying since you believe that in Matt 21:43 the nation that will bring in forth good fruit, is Israel. The latter part of your post shows how you contradict yourself because you got it right that those who will bear fruit are believers. Maybe it's your grammar that's your problem.

[Trivalee]

Re: Has the New Covenant started or is it still in the future?

You have little understanding of the MK. There will still be sinners. Still be those that rebel. Still those that perish because of disobedience. Still those that come against the great city and are devoured. The MK is not all peaches and cream. Your timeline is messed up. Back to the scriptures you go.

If you had paid half attention to what I said about the MK, you would have noted that in my view, righteousness will only be in the New Jerusalem, the holy city that comes down from heaven. The wicked nations will live outside the holy city.

[Trivalee]

Re: Has the New Covenant started or is it still in the future?

Why are you ignoring all the other aspects of the parable? Like the seed is sown in the field and Jesus said the field is the world. Everything that takes place, takes place in the world for a very long period of time. You can't just jump to the end. Try to apply this nonsense to the next four parables. You can't.

Read the parable again and note the grammar "the kingdom of heaven is likened to". The text didn't say the earth is the Koh, it is a comparison.

[bluesky22]

Re: Has the New Covenant started or is it still in the future?

This was an ongoing discussion but was unfortunately deleted during the recent glitch, hence my quest to reignite the discourse. Jeremiah 31:31-35 had prophesied that a new covenant will replace the old and this was fulfilled by Jesus death on the cross (Heb 10:20). Further support can also be found in numerous passages in Hebrews.

Hebrews 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

There are, however, those who hold contrary views; these handfuls argue that the new covenant will come into effect when Jesus returns.

What's your thought on the subject?

How someone could argue that NC ( new cov ) has not begun yet blows my mind. The Jews today, should be under the NC just as the first Jews were, but they cling to types and shadows and therefore grope along in the dark.

This was good >>> https://www.gotquestions.org/new-covenant.html “What is the NC?”

Here’s a clue that is on now.

When Ezekiel said 36:26–27, “I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.”

Doesn’t this sound an aweful lot about being born again? Don’t Christians have the spirit of God living in them?

This is the danger of dispensationalism. It teaches a whole different theology to Jews and Christians when in fact, the first Jews saw the connections that Jesus was the fulfillment of the OT types and shadows.

The NC replaced the OT for all alive. The first Jews saw this. The remnant saw the connenction and went with it.

[Trivalee]

Re: Has the New Covenant started or is it still in the future?

That doesn't happen until chp21, after all the events of chp 20. It comes down only after the GWTJ and the beginning of the NHNE.

Rev 20:11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
Rev 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
Rev 21:2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

You are making the wrong assumption that Revelation is in chronology where chapter 21 comes after 20 and vice versa. But this is not the case. Note that the GWTJ takes place in Rev 20:11-14? v-15 "And whosoever is not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire" ? If your chronology is right, then the wicked called the "nations" will no longer be on earth, right?

But they are clearly still present after the NJ has come down to earth.

Rev 21:27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.
Rev 22:15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

Remember that I'm just responding to your timeline where the wicked and the nations who reject God are judged in the GWT and ceases to exist from Rev 20:15. So if chronology is in place, then explain the verses above (outside Rev 20:15) that reference the wicked that supposedly doesn't exist anymore?

[Trivalee]

Re: Has the New Covenant started or is it still in the future?

Sorry this isn't proof, all you are offering is someone personal interpretation of Rev 21:26-27 but i can think of multiple explantions that do not follow this line of Reasoning. I what world is someones opinion on passages considered proof of anything? A similar statement is made in Rev 22:14 niether passage in any way require us to believe that the NJ came down from heaven before the NHNE. Sorry if you believe they do, but your personal understanding of why this belief is nessary is not proof of anything.

You have not provided anything worth considering as reason to invalid my position. Sorry. It's unfortunate that because of your personal crusade against me, you are incapable of ever agreeing on sound doctrine because it came from me.

[Jesuslovesus]

Re: Has the New Covenant started or is it still in the future?

How someone could argue that NC ( new cov ) has not begun yet blows my mind. The Jews today, should be under the NC just as the first Jews were, but they cling to types and shadows and therefore grope along in the dark.

This was good >>> https://www.gotquestions.org/new-covenant.html “What is the NC?”

Here’s a clue that is on now.

When Ezekiel said 36:26–27, “I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.”

Doesn’t this sound an aweful lot about being born again? Don’t Christians have the spirit of God living in them?

This is the danger of dispensationalism. It teaches a whole different theology to Jews and Christians when in fact, the first Jews saw the connections that Jesus was the fulfillment of the OT types and shadows.

The NC replaced the OT for all alive. The first Jews saw this. The remnant saw the connenction and went with it.

Sorry i don't understand why you quoted that article when it doesn't support your position.

Here is quote from the article.

Quote: The New Covenant was originally given to Israel and includes a promise of fruitfulness, blessing, and a peaceful existence in the Promised Land. In Ezekiel 36:28–30 God says, “Then you will live in the land I gave your ancestors; you will be my people, and I will be your God. . . . I will call for the grain and make it plentiful and will not bring famine upon you. I will increase the fruit of the trees and the crops of the field, so that you will no longer suffer disgrace among the nations because of famine.” Deuteronomy 30:1–5 contains similar promises related to Israel under the New Covenant. After the resurrection of Christ, Gentiles were brought into the blessing of the New Covenant, too (Acts 10; Ephesians 2:13–14). The fulfillment of the New Covenant will be seen in two places: on earth, during the Millennial Kingdom; and in heaven, for all eternity"

Literally this is what we've been saying from the beginning if you don't believe this article supports the position that the NC takes place On Earth during the Millenial Kingdom what exactly do you "think" it states?

[Trivalee]

Re: Has the New Covenant started or is it still in the future?

The all came out and said they didn't agree when i said none of us and they I meant the specific people currently arguing this debate, Noeb, DWM, Ewq, I'm sure Walls would say the same, the fact is you didn't believe this either, I saw the post where you excepted this position from FHG, the fact is that line of reasoning is unnecessary, it is easy to understand why the wicked nations do not enter the NJ without changing up the timeline established in Rev 20-21 people have been able to do it for centuries, when did FHG personal position become proof? The day you adpoted it?

No one here in this thread that I've seen believes your timeline for the arrival of the NJ is accurate, I was just trying to let you know that presenting it will not be helpful or lead to any meaningful agreements.

If you say so. I know those with something to say on this Board...

[kyCyd]

Re: Has the New Covenant started or is it still in the future?

I do not really understand the difference but I do believe there is a difference. The same as when Paul will use, Jesus Christ and then turn it around and use Christ Jesus. There has to be a reason there. Another is in the prophets where, Israel, Jacob, house of Israel, House of Jacob. They can not all refer to the same thing, IMHO.

I agree, that was why I questioned it, and posted a thread way back.

This to me was part of the problem with the KH and KG being the same thing. So this is why I am beginning to see them as different like Noeb mentions. Think about this:

Matthew 11:12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.

Luke 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

Ask yourself this question: If the "Kingdom of God" is within you, and if the "Kingdom of God" and "Kingdom of Heaven" are one and the same, how could anyone take it out of you by violence?

Does that help you to see the difference between the spiritual and the physical?

[Jesuslovesus]

Re: Has the New Covenant started or is it still in the future?

You have not provided anything worth considering as reason to invalid my position.

I just don't accept your personal position as proof, I believe there are other interpretations that don't require us to change up the timeline presented in Revelation 20-22

It's unfortunate that because of your personal crusade against me, you are incapable of ever agreeing on sound doctrine because it came from me.

I have no personal crusade against you, personally you are one of my favorite people to debate because of your inability to grasp certain concepts allows my to actually expound on my own positions. Consider since i've been back how many posts from others I have actually interacted with. Seriously I love you brother and I really would like to help you, I have no desire for you to force you to come to my positions, I just really wish you would open up to other intreptations and stop considering whatever one you currently hold at a given time is a Fact. As I stated nothing in Rev 21:26-27 or Rev 22:14-15 requires that the NJ to comes down during the MK and there are clear reasons why this is not the case. Other people here also do not agree with you do you honestly believe it just simply because of a vendetta? The truth is there are other ways to solve the paradox that you seem to believe these passages show then to say the NJ comes early.

[Trivalee]

Re: Has the New Covenant started or is it still in the future?

It is amusing to me how you are attacking a source because you personally do not want to "understand" what they're saying because it's not your personal view, but if you are really interested in this answer just check out there website yourself not like it's my job to defend them. https://thebibleproject.com/team/

One of the creators has a Ph.D. in Semitic Languages and Biblical Studies, he is a real life biblical scholar, but go ahead attack people trying to spread the word because it doesn't support your current position.

I don't see any instance where I attacked you personally. If you believe this is the case please send me specific examples and I will apologize and delete them(but i'm pretty sure you don't have any and will end up just pretending you never accused me of this).

I have nothing against fellow Christians propagating the Gospel of Christ. My point is that you often proffer close to nothing as your "own" opinion. You have a tendency to copy opinions from the internet to make your case. Secondly, (and I'm saying this as a general statement not focused against anyone) the fact that someone has a PhD in religious studies or posted an article online does not necessarily mean that the ideas and thoughts they express are infallible.

As per your personal attacks against me, I can't believe you're even pretending to be unaware! It didn't start from the OP. There are several posts here where you ignored what I wrote in favour of remarks that are unrelated. But it doesn't bother me. I concur when your argument is on point.