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?

I do believe how I articulated my view was very clunky and inarticulate. First time I ever argued Jesus role as mediator Ends. Let me Just quote someone else instead who seems to express my view better then I did. The fact is 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 does establish the fact that there is a limit to Jesus role as Mediator, Rev 21:3 shows that God makes his home with man without the need for a mediator either in the form of the Man Jesus or a temple.

Quote C. Hedge, D.D. : "That dominion to which He was exalted after His resurrection, when all power in heaven and earth was committed to His hands. This kingdom, which He exercises as the Theanthropos, and which extends over all principalities and powers, He is to deliver up when the work of redemption is accomplished. He was invested with this dominion in His mediatorial character for the purpose of carrying on His work to its consummation. When that is done, i.e., when He has subdued all His enemies, then He will no longer reign over the universe as Mediator, but only as God: while His headship over His people is to continue forever. "

I'm hardly in the desert in my view on this subject(not like you care to be informed).

The fact that you believe that God will Continue to be Human after he accomplished the purpose that made him take on flesh in the first place is not surprising coming from you. But I Do believe God will become All in All just like the bible states.

For a start, you may believe that "God will continue to be human" I NEVER expressed such view in any post, quote me. This is because when he returns, he will not be in human flesh as he was in the first advent. Scripture says that when he returns, we shall see him as he is, i.e. in his spiritual immortal body because we too, will be thus clothed. So I don't know where you read that he will continue to be in human form?

1 John 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.


Second, the Bible did not explicitly say that Jesus will at some point cease to be our mediator, so I'm reluctant to accept the view of C. Hedge, D.D. even though I admit it is logical.

[Trivalee]

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

I wonder if you understand how foolish you sound by letting this drag on.

I may be foolish for standing up to a bad interpretation of scripture, my beloved brother Rom 1:22 says "professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. So why you in your wisdom claim to be right, I may yet have the last laugh.

Really??? The only proof that you will accept that in Pauls Analogy in Romans 11:16-24 that Jesus was represented by the *Root* and not as an *Olive Tree* would be a tree "levitating in the air". Will you feel better if I just pretended you were right?

I don't need you to pretend to anything. Just prove to me that a tree can levitate or survive without roots, that's all I ask. It's not a hard question, is it? Convince me on this and I'll believe you.

[Trivalee]

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

Scripture reveals the gathering has already taken place, and there no indication God has another in store.

I concur. Unfortunately, some can't tell fulfilled prophecies from the unfulfilled.

[Noeb]

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

The confusion you have in my opinion is that you are not understanding or maybe not defining the Phrase that God may be All in All. The point is that God is not a Man. Jesus humbled himself so that he who was God could Become the mediator(Philippians 2:6-11) also known sometimes as God the Son. The idea that he will remain the Mediator forever basically claims that God will always be A Man in the form of God the Son. This simply is not the case which is what I tried to outline with Eqw in Post 1039, that is his stated position, that Jesus will remain in the form he took as mediator (100% Humans)(100%God) for all eternity and essentially be separate from God the Father. Which is why it is outlined in the passage that then the Son will be subject also, that God may be All in ALL. (100% God, 0% Human). I believe that's one interpretation of the passage, not sure if I articulated it well, seems like a heavy topic but quite interesting.

God was not a man, but he became one, and there is no indication in scripture that he will ever stop being one. Also, I've always found the 100% God/100% Human claim absurd. That's 200% and any one thing can only be 100%. God doesn't need to do a lot of things that Jesus had to do so no, clearly not 100% God. God cannot be tempted, but Jesus could. Clearly not 100% God. We could list 50 more, but you get the idea. I don't know why Christians can't accept God became a man who was given the Spirit w/o measure. Does God need to be given the Spirit w/o measure? During this time Jesus was not considered separated from the Father. On the contrary. They were one. How can you say Jesus humbled himself and took on flesh then turn around and say he remained 100% God? Jesus had to accomplish what Adam failed to accomplish. If he did this as God he essentially accomplished nothing. He is high priest forever in an everlasting covenant, and the high priest is a man. God cannot be high priest to himself.

All in all has nothing to do with the role of Mediator. The context is the resurrection. Once glorified we will know as we are known. The limitations of the natural will cease. We won't see in part and will have the Spirit without measure. Resist the notion of applying one concept found elsewhere to another out of context.

[Jesuslovesus]

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

God was not a man, but he became one, and there is no indication in scripture that he will ever stop being one.

I disagree, I believe that the phrase the God will be all in All does give the indication that God will indeed stop being a man.

Also, I've always found the 100% God/100% Human claim absurd. That's 200% and any one thing can only be 100%. God doesn't need to do a lot of things that Jesus had to do so no, clearly not 100% God. God cannot be tempted, but Jesus could. Clearly not 100% God. We could list 50 more, but you get the idea. I don't know why Christians can't accept God became a man who was given the Spirit w/o measure. Does God need to be given the Spirit w/o measure? During this time Jesus was not considered separated from the Father. On the contrary. They were one. How can you say Jesus humbled himself and took on flesh then turn around and say he remained 100% God? Jesus had to accomplish what Adam failed to accomplish. If he did this as God he essentially accomplished nothing. He is high priest forever in an everlasting covenant, and the high priest is a man. God cannot be high priest to himself.

Actually this is a rant and it seems to be a mix bag of statements I don't agree with and some I do.

All in all has nothing to do with the role of Mediator.

Yes it does.

The context is the resurrection.

Paul clearly goes Past the Resurrection and Describes *The End*.

Once glorified we will know as we are known. The limitations of the natural will cease. We won't see in part and will have the Spirit without measure. Resist the notion of applying one concept found elsewhere to another out of context.

not sure what out of context of one concept being put another place. But I guess thanks for sharing your views?

[Noeb]

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

I disagree, I believe that the phrase the God will be all in All does give the indication that God will indeed stop being a man.

Actually this is a rant and it seems to be a mix bag of statements I don't agree with and some I do.

Yes it does. Paul clearly goes Past the Resurrection and Describes *The End*. not sure what out of context of one concept being put another place. But I guess thanks for sharing your views?

Verse 29 "Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?

Clearly goes past the resurrection? Why then is it the context and subject before and after all in all? You don't have any scripture that could cause you to disagree. You don't have any to be able to say "yes it does".

[Jesuslovesus]

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

Verse 29 "Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?

Clearly goes past the resurrection? Why then is it the context and subject before and after all in all? You don't have any scripture that could cause you to disagree. You don't have any to be able to say "yes it does".

Yes, when Paul says *Then Comes the End* he is clearly envisioning a time after the Ressurection.

Verse 29 "Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?

Clearly goes past the resurrection? Why then is it the context and subject before and after all in all? You don't have any scripture that could cause you to disagree. You don't have any to be able to say "yes it does".

Yes, when Paul says *Then Comes the End* he is clearly envisioning a time after the Ressurection.

[Noeb]

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

Yes, when Paul says *Then Comes the End* he is clearly envisioning a time after the Ressurection.

Which one? Clearly after a thousand years. After death and hell are cast into the lake of fire and God is in all that remain. It's not complicated.

[Jesuslovesus]

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

Which one? Clearly after a thousand years. After death and hell are cast into the lake of fire and God is in all that remain. It's not complicated.

Not sure what we are disagreeing on then. I agree it's "not complicated".

[Noeb]

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

Not sure what we are disagreeing on then. I agree it's "not complicated".

We've been disagreeing on everything. There's no way to read God all in all in the midst of a resurrection context and conclude it means Jesus is going to stop being a man. Why is God the Son forever a bad thing?

[Jesuslovesus]

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

We've been disagreeing on everything. There's no way to read God all in all in the midst of a resurrection context and conclude it means Jesus is going to stop being a man. Why is God the Son forever a bad thing?

That's exactly what I Did and I'm not the only one, so if you don't agree like you said we don't agree on much so it's fine if you don't believe it or we don't agree on this. The fact is I can interpret the phrase (the God may be All in All) to mean that God will return to how he was before the reincarnation of the Son Jesus as soon as the purpose of the son is completed.

[Noeb]

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

Again, the role of a mediator no longer being needed doesn't change the fact that Jesus is High Priest and Mediator forever of an everlasting NC and that not a verse implies he stops being either. I'm glad to see you acknowledge it's your interpretation and not stated in scripture though. Strange interpretation, since the Son's purpose is to be so forever.

[Jesuslovesus]

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

Again, the role of a mediator no longer being needed doesn't change the fact that Jesus is High Priest and Mediator forever of an everlasting NC and that not a verse implies he stops being either. I'm glad to see you acknowledge it's your interpretation and not stated in scripture though. Strange interpretation, since the Son's purpose is to be so forever.

I told you the verse that not only *implies* it it explicitly states it once more 1 Corinthians 15:28. The *SON* will be Subject to the God the Father, and God will be ALL in ALL. Not strange just not something you agree on which is fine. It is an Interpretation of what is Stated in Scripture, just like you seem to be offering your own alternitives that are "strange". I'm done here if you can't even agree that this passage says the *Son will be Subject* onto God and you can't understand what that means not my problem.

[Jesuslovesus]

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

Again, the role of a mediator no longer being needed doesn't change the fact that Jesus is High Priest and Mediator forever of an everlasting NC and that not a verse implies he stops being either.

This is false, I told you the verse that not only *implies* it it explicitly states it once more 1 Corinthians 15:28. The *SON* will be Subject to the God the Father, and God will be ALL in ALL. It's strange that you don't agree with Paul but that is fine.

I'm glad to see you acknowledge it's your interpretation and not stated in scripture though.

It is an Interpretation of what is Stated in Scripture, just like you seem to be offering your own alternitives that are "strange".

Strange interpretation, since the Son's purpose is to be so forever.

I'm done here if you can't even agree that this passage says the *Son will be Subject* onto God and you can't understand what that means not my problem. But the purpose of the Son is clearly NOT forever.

[Trivalee]

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

Again, the role of a mediator no longer being needed doesn't change the fact that Jesus is High Priest and Mediator forever of an everlasting NC and that not a verse implies he stops being either. I'm glad to see you acknowledge it's your interpretation and not stated in scripture though. Strange interpretation, since the Son's purpose is to be so forever.

Amen to that. You are on point.

Again, the role of a mediator no longer being needed doesn't change the fact that Jesus is High Priest and Mediator forever of an everlasting NC and that not a verse implies he stops being either. I'm glad to see you acknowledge it's your interpretation and not stated in scripture though. Strange interpretation, since the Son's purpose is to be so forever.

Amen to that. You are on point.