Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

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

    Originally posted by Walls View Post
    The end of the matter is that you can't provide any proof from 2nd Corinthians 3 that the Church is under the New Covenant. You claim to have the truth, yet above is just copy and pasting of the texts under discussion. You are great at one critical liners. But you can't string three sentences together to show the point under discussion. And if we do ask you for this grand truth you claim to have, you answer that we "whine, cry and lie" about you. But every reader knows that my request for exegesis on 2nd Corinthians 3:6 was formal, reasonable and to the point for it is the only verse in the whole New Testament that brings together Apostles and the New Covenant. But ... I have yet to see you string a coherent argument together. Your criticism is big, your exegesis is non-existent. 1st Corinthians 3 speaks of us being "builders of the Church". You are are a "breaker down".
    Forgive me for wading in. A lot has been written and I'm not sure what the reference to 2 Cor 3:6 is all about? I may be wrong, but you seem to demand proof that this text confirms that the apostles are under the New Covenant? If this is your query, then I'll answer as follows:

    2 Cor 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

    Without quoting too much scripture, Paul had laid the foundation of their (Do we [plural-apostles] begin to commend ourselves) ministry/work to preach Christ. Characteristic of his humility, he says in v-5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think anything as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;. A clear statement that they (Apostles) are not claiming that the feat is by their own power, but of God.

    After his remarks in v-6 (which is about the NC), he contrasts it with the Old Covenant v-7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:

    Paul's argument is as plain as day; while the new covenant is spiritual and based on faith with the spirit which gives life (not the letter which kills), the Old, in contrast, written on stone was so terrifying that the children of Israel could not behold the face of Moses - yet despite its apparent glory, it was done away on account of its weakness (Heb 9:7). Still comparing the covenants, Paul asks rhetorically:

    v-8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit (NC) be rather glorious?

    9 For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.

    10 For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.

    11 For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.


    As I said from the start, I'm not completely sure of what you wanted from the text (2 Cor 3:6); but if you're a making a case that v-6 excludes the Apostles and the Church from the NC, I sure hope that this little exegesis proves you wrong.

    Comment


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

      Originally posted by Jesuslovesus View Post
      Clearly you want to ignore the chapter because the City and the Land are both mentioned as is your perogative so go ahead. As long as we both *KNOW* that in the chapter both the Land and the Holy City are clearly in view.
      Believe what makes you. I have challenged you to prove that the context if Jer 31:31-34 included "land and the holy city". If all you have in response is a petulant "clearly you want to ignore the chapter..." then I'll take it you have nothing constructive to add.

      I never claimed this you did, you claim Jesus is no longer Mediating the New Covenant because it is now established.
      Kindly quote where I said that Jesus is no longer mediating? On the contrary, that was your claim.

      I don't know how you can read hebrews and not understand when things are clearly spelt out, maybe its the same issue you run into when you analyze people posts. Try to read whats going on here, do you see Jesus dieing again in this passage????
      Once more try to *NOTE* Where the BLOOD is SPRINKLED.

      In the case of a will,[d] it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, 17 because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living. 18 This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood. 19 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. 20 He said, “This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep.”[e] 21 In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies. 22 In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

      23 It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

      Please NOTE what Jesus is doing NOW

      24 For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence. 25 Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26 Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

      This should answer you question about Whether or Not Jesus has to die again as Emphatialically as possible the Answer is NO. He will come back to bring salvation to those waiting for him Got to go will be back to finish later.
      I'm glad you agreed that Jesus won't die again. So now you understand the folly of that argument that even though he died to bring in the NC, yet for some unknown reason which you're yet to explain, the covenant is somehow "suspended" until he returns?

      Hebrews clearly associated the NC with the forgiveness of sins, what then is the essence of establishing the NC in the MK when the faithful must have received the promised eternal life?

      Comment


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

        Originally posted by Trivalee View Post
        The partakers of the New Covenant are all believers in Christ who naturally comprise of those of the House of David (Israel and Judah). The disciples were the first to receive it on the Day of Pentecost.
        I've seldom seen such jumbled thoughts. "The partakers of the New Covenant are all believers in Christ who naturally comprise of those of the House of David (Israel and Judah)" Really? The Church has now become the House of David and not the house of God? And the House of David is the House of Israel and the House of Judah? And the disciples received the New Covenant on Pentecost? C'mon brother. How can this be if in Acts 15:14-16 the Church is first built and THEN ONLY the House of David?

        Let me make an observation, not of you, but of men in general (including myself). In our daily life, in our Church life and in our study of scripture, we come to T-Junctions. We must choose - this way, or that way. We could make the wrong choice. But the beauty of a wrong choice is that as we go down the junction we have taken, the problems start to pile up. And finally we are bogged down in absurdities. This is not bad because when we finally decide that we are on the wrong road, we have learned a valuable lesson that we never forget. But the way to the correct junction is not to jump over to a parallel road. We first have to retrace our steps through all the errors we made, and then start our journey on the right way. Throughout this thread you have steadily got more and more entangled in contradiction like the above matter of David's House. Take a "time-out" and prayerfully consider what you said above. Then consider that you are still unable to bring a single verse that directly, plainly and unambiguously states that the New Covenant is made with the Church. Jeremiah is so plain, simple, direct and unambiguous. The New Covenant is a Covenant of Law. The New Covenant is made with a united Israel, therefore is still future. The Church is not revealed to Jeremiah so he could NOT have meant the Church.

        Originally posted by Trivalee View Post
        Paul said in Eph 2:12 that the Gentiles who were aliens and strangers in the Old Covenant have now being assimilated into the Commonwealth of Israel by the death of Christ. He went further to say in Gal 3:27-28 that for those who are baptised in Christ, there's neither Jew nor Gentile, bond nor free, male nor female. If these passages don't prove that the church is part of the New Covenant, nothing else will.

        You need to pray for discernment not only to read your Bible but to actually understand it.
        And what is the meaning of the word "Commonwealth"? We have already dealt with it in a previous posting, but you act as if that did not happen. The Greek Word rendered "Commonwealth" does not mean that the Church was assimilated into Israel. "Commonwealth" means what the relationship of the citizen is to the legalities of the state. Israel was legally heir to the world (Rom.4:13) but forfeit it by the rejection of the Chief Heir, Jesus (Matt.21:43). By virtue of being IN Christ, and by being Christ's, we (the Church), by default, and not birth to Isaac, become heirs. We partake of the LEGAL STANDING of Israel without being born of the seed of Jacob. C'mon brother. At least be true to the words that God has used.


        Originally posted by Trivalee View Post
        According to Paul, the purpose of the Old Mosaic Covenant was as follows:

        Gal 3:19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed [Jesus]should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

        20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.

        21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

        22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

        23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

        24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

        25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.


        Walls says: That the First Covenant was so that Israel "would prolong her days in the Land" I have cited the reasons the First Covenant was given according to Paul. Did the scriptures say anything about it prolonging the days of Israel in the Land? You be the judge!!!
        Again, we have dealt with this in a previous posting. I refer you to my posting #50 - last paragraph. There you will find the verses. It is a marvelous thing how you not only disregard sound argument, but you don't even acknowledge them. It is not at all flattering to a student of anything if he is not familiar with his opponent's arguments. It would seem that you have shut your mind to anything your opponents say.

        Originally posted by Trivalee View Post
        Indeed, faith leads to eternal life. The question is in whom should this faith be invested in? Isn't it in Christ? So with faith in Christ, we partake of the New Covenant which leads to eternal life. Heb 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 [those who believe] might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
        I am amazed. In your previous posting you claimed that the Covenants lead to eternal life. Now you suddenly agree with scripture (e.g.Jn.3:15). But then you revert to the New Covenant, which you say, "leads to eternal life". Which one is it? And why will you not give scripture for this amazing theory. Next, you quote Hebrews 9:15, and not being able to prove anything with it, must add to it. Let us examine the text. But first we better settle the meaning of "inheritance". Get your Concordance and look up every mention of "inheritance". You will find out that it is mentioned about 240 times in about 200 verses. And with a few exceptions it means the Land of Canaan. The few exceptions are that:
        • God is an inheritance to the Levites because they do not inherit the Land
        • Israel is God's inheritance
        • The Church is God's inheritance
        • Abraham's inheritance of the Land of Canaan is extended to the whole world for the Church (Rom.4:13)

        Having settled this, we could close the argument right now as you have changed "eternal inheritance" into "eternal life", which you should not do to any scripture. But the verse merits more than a correction of your unilateral changes. For reference, here it is;

        "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."

        "For this cause". What "cause"? Israel have offerings in verse 13-14. What do they do? They cleanse the flesh but cannot cleans the conscience. This means that Israel can be ceremonially clean but their consciences always convict them of sins. Now Israel have rejected Christ and are "ALL concluded in unbelief by God". How then will they EVER have a clear conscience? When Christ returns and sets up Israel as a united nation again in their own Land, how can they stand before Emmanuel plagued by their conscience of what they did? So God makes our Lord Jesus Mediator of the New Covenant. What does this help? It helps to the uttermost because Christ's death is for Israel's sins as well! Both John 1:29 and 1st John 2:2 say that Christ takes away - NOT the sins of the Church - BUT OF THE WHOLE WORLD! Yes! Adam's sin, Cain's sins, Hitler's sins and Judas' sins. This is vitally important because if sin or sins remain how can God resurrected ALL men as 1st Corinthians 15:22 says?

        But is does not guarantee that God will take away Hitler's and Judas' sins. It only gives God the JUDICIAL RIGHT to forgive who He wants to (Rom.9:18). And He has PROMISED to take away Israel's sins one day (e.g. Isa.1:18, 44:22; Mic.7:18-19, etc.). On what basis? BY MAKING OUR LORD JESUS THE MEDIATOR FOR ISRAEL'S NEW COVENANT. On what basis are the sins of the Church taken away? NOT BY CHRIST'S MEDIATORIAL ROLE, BUT BY BECAUSE WE BELIEVED (Rom.3:25). The Church does not need a Mediator to get their consciences purged. They have it because they have taken Christ's blood. But Israel has refused it. THEY are the ones who transgressed UNDER THE "FIRST" COVENANT. They Church never had a "FIRST" Covenant. And what does the "transgressions of the FIRST Covenant" DO? They get Israel kicked out of the Land of Canaan!

        So, for Israel to get back into their Land, they need
        1. their TRANSGRESSION put away OUTSIDE of faith because they had none
        2. a New unbroken Covenant that does not call the curses of the Law upon them
        3. a MEDIATOR Who is capable of putting their past transgressions away to clear their consciences before God
        4. And how do we know that the author of Hebrews is speaking of Israel? By (i) the context of the offerings that washed bodies but did not put away sins (verses 13-14), (ii) the use of the word "THEY". The author of Hebrews is talking of somebody else than "those of the heavenly calling", and (iii) "THEY" are those who were under the "FIRST TESTAMENT" - Israel.

        Now we come to the crux of the matter. The verse ends with "they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance". In the grand scheme of things, neither you, nor I, nor the whole nation of Israel is anything. We are pinprick in the mighty hand of God. But what is SOMETHING is God's PROMISES! His honor hangs on Him fulfilling His WORD! The honor of God is above all things! "... for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name" (Psalm 138:2)! So if God has made a Covenant of Promise with Abraham that his seed via Isaac and Jacob would gain the Land of Canaan, HE MUST SOMEHOW FULFILL IT. The Covenant of Law given 430 years later at Sinai has caused Israel to FORFEIT this Land. How will God keep His PROMISE then! He is a righteous God. He cannot violate the Laws He made. How will He get ALL Israel into Canaan one day when Israel have broken the Covenant that would have kept them in?
        1. BY AN ALL-INCLUSIVE, ALL-ENCOMPASSING, ALL-ACHIEVING MEDIATOR to put away the transgressions under the Covenant of Sinai
        2. By this ALL-ACHIEVING MEDIATOR who has carried His blood into the Holy of Holies in heaven and been accepted as propitiation, NOT ONLY for the BELIEVERS, but for UNBELIEVING ISRAEL
        3. By letting the First Covenant of Law wax old and disappear and replacing it with a New Covenant of Law. The Law stays the same, for it shall not pass, but the CONTRACT is New

        This has nothing to do with eternal life. This all has to do with getting naughty Israel back into their INHERITANCE - the Land of Canaan! THAT ... is their eternal INHERITANCE! It is Promised as "an everlasting POSSESSION"! (Gen.17:8).

        Can God do this legally. Can He do it without violating His rules. How clever!

        Comment


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

          Originally posted by Trivalee View Post
          Forgive me for wading in. A lot has been written and I'm not sure what the reference to 2 Cor 3:6 is all about? I may be wrong, but you seem to demand proof that this text confirms that the apostles are under the New Covenant? If this is your query, then I'll answer as follows:

          2 Cor 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

          Without quoting too much scripture, Paul had laid the foundation of their (Do we [plural-apostles] begin to commend ourselves) ministry/work to preach Christ. Characteristic of his humility, he says in v-5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think anything as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;. A clear statement that they (Apostles) are not claiming that the feat is by their own power, but of God.

          After his remarks in v-6 (which is about the NC), he contrasts it with the Old Covenant v-7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:

          Paul's argument is as plain as day; while the new covenant is spiritual and based on faith with the spirit which gives life (not the letter which kills), the Old, in contrast, written on stone was so terrifying that the children of Israel could not behold the face of Moses - yet despite its apparent glory, it was done away on account of its weakness (Heb 9:7). Still comparing the covenants, Paul asks rhetorically:

          v-8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit (NC) be rather glorious?

          9 For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.

          10 For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.

          11 For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.


          As I said from the start, I'm not completely sure of what you wanted from the text (2 Cor 3:6); but if you're a making a case that v-6 excludes the Apostles and the Church from the NC, I sure hope that this little exegesis proves you wrong.
          You are free to enter any argument/discussion, and I welcome it. My answer was to brother Noeb's answer to my posting #98. You'll first have to read that then to get the gist. I won't reply to what you have said. My posting just above is long enough. Rather read that carefully. It might clear some things up. But what ever - God bless.

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by Trivalee View Post
            Believe what makes you. I have challenged you to prove that the context if Jer 31:31-34 included "land and the holy city". If all you have in response is a petulant "clearly you want to ignore the chapter..." then I'll take it you have nothing constructive to add.
            You're literally asked me to read the bible for you, and add things that are not in the text, what else would you consider "constructive"? Anyone who can read Jer 31:31-34 knows that those specific verses don't mention the land or the City. Just like anyone who can read can see that there is no mention of the Gentiles either. This isn't even really a question or a "challenge" as it offers no value, it is just one of your personal methods that you use to box people into your point of view.


            Show me in Genisis 1:1 where it mentions Jesus dying on the cross? Oh, you can't guess you have nothing constructive to add. What a [/FONT][/COLOR]preposterous and trite exercise that is.[COLOR=#333333][FONT=Verdana]


            Because I can't find any mention of the land and the city in those restricted texts (Jer 31:31-34) even though it's mentioned in Jeremiah 31:1-30 and Jeremiah 31:35-40 you can just pretend the rest of God's word is irrelevant since it doesn't fit with your personal views or the doctrine you seem to be pushing at the time. For me, I find this kind of behavior dishonest and misleading and overall a waste of time.

            What other response if there besides clearly you want to ignore the chapter. Would it be better for me to say,

            Oh, I didn't expect your form of argumentation on this issue to be - ignore the context of this passage by dismissing the rest of the chapter as irrelevant-

            If that is the case then, of course, I can't meet your challenge. Wow, Trivillee really got me there! Score! Is that less petulant?


            As someone who personally wants to be a Biblical Scholar and write and review works from peers, the fact that you want to dismiss and actively lead others away from things that hurt your point of view drives me insane. Why start a thread asking for others opinions if you all you want to hear is the echo chamber of your own voice. If you believe you have it right and everyone who disagrees with you needs prayer and wisdom why even pretend you wish to debate? Why ask me to answer questions or explain aspects of my beliefs just so you can put me down, misquote me, and attack my character. You have questions i'm honestly doing my best to explain my view to you that's all I can do if you don't want my input just don't ask for it.


            At least I can honestly say that the Land and the City are mentioned in the chapter, you can't even say the Gentiles are mentioned in any form of New covenant passage in the whole bible.


            The constructive thing I can add to Jeremiah 31:31-34 is it's context namely the rest of the chapter. If you ignore it then clearly I have nothing.....

            Originally posted by Trivalee View Post
            Kindly quote where I said that Jesus is no longer mediating?
            You refused to answer the question so I'll ask it again do you believe Jesus is currently mediating the new covenant while the covenant is active. Yes or no?

            Originally posted by Trivalee View Post
            On the contrary, that was your claim.
            You believe my claim is that "Jesus is no longer mediating the New Covenant because the New Covenant is currently in effect", [/I][I]is that honestly what you think I believe because if it is then this discussion might really be pointless. Or is this just a deflection tactic where you try to just flip everything back on me whether it's logical or not?

            Originally posted by Trivalee View Post
            I'm glad you agreed that Jesus won't die again.So now you understand the folly of that argument that even though he died to bring in the NC, yet for some unknown reason which you're yet to explain, the covenant is somehow "suspended" until he returns? Hebrews clearly associated the NC with the forgiveness of sins, what then is the essence of establishing the NC in the MK when the faithful must have received the promised eternal life?
            Honestly, your ability to misread things is like legendary, if you spent half the time you put into your replies reading and trying to understand others and doing the same for the bible passages you read I believe you would save yourself and others who speak with you an immense amount of time. I mean this as no insult just seriously consider reading things a few times before speaking.


            You're the one who is adding this condition that Jesus must die again, no one else in this thread I have seen has even brought up this idea. The main reason why is because this issue was addressed in the very passages we are going over and I quoted and bolded the portions for you but you still seem to have trouble comprehending it. Here I will try again.


            Hebrews 9:15 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.[h] 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.
            This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood. 19 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. 20 He said, “This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep.”[e] 21 In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies. 22 In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.


            Let's break this down into small consumable pieces you won't misread.

            The Role of Christ.

            1. He is the mediator of the New Covenant, so that those called may receive the promised eternal inheritance.2. A death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant (The Death of Christ)
            3. A will ONLY take effect after the death of him that made it

            What Moses Did.

            1. The First Covenant was not Put into effect without blood.
            2. He took the Blood and Sprinkled it on the Scroll
            3. He took the blood and Sprinkled it on ALL the people.
            4. He sprinkled the blood on both the Tabernacle and Everything used in its ceremonies.


            Now Note What Jesus did




            For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence. 25 Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26 Otherwise, Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.


            1. Jesus entered Heaven Itself
            2. Jesus now appears for us in God's presence.
            3. When the high priest Enters the Most holy place he does so with blood NOT HIS OWN.


            Once more the only way the High Priest can enter the Holy Place is with BLOOD.


            The only Way Jesus could enter Heaven was BY HIS BLOOD.


            4. If this was not the case(that he entered by his own blood) Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world.
            5. Christ Has appeared Once at the culmination of the ages to do away with Sin by the sacrifice of himself.
            6. Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment.


            Please note line 6, After people die do they Immeditially go face Judgement? or Is that Judgment reserved for the End of the Ages?


            7. So Christ(refer to line 6) was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many (this was the Cross).


            8. He will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him. (WHEN)??? At the culmination of the ages.


            I'm gonna bold what Jesus is doing now so you have the answer to the questions.




            1. According to Hebrews 9:24 what is Jesus doing *NOW*?




            2. According to Hebrews 9:26 When does Christ Appear once and for all to do away with Sin by the sacrifice of himself?




            3. Did the crucifixion happen at the end of the Ages?




            4. When in your view did Hebrews 12:22-26 occur?




            Question 4 is important because this passage speaks of the Sealing of the Covenant the SAME way Moses did it *BY THE SPRINKLING OF BLOOD* please be fair be honest answer these questions from the text and my view should be clear to you.




            For anyone looking for a clear exposition of this please Read Revelation 4-6 -Where the Lamb (Jesus) Appears before God the Father at the culmination of the Ages to bring Salvation to those eagerly awaiting him and as Evidence of all this including the New Covenant being sealed the Arc of our Covenant with God becomes Visible. Revelations 11:19 Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and within his temple was seen the ark of his covenant. And there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake and a severe hailstorm.

            Comment


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

              Originally posted by Walls View Post
              Maybe. But you, claiming to know the truth, refrain from sharing it with your brothers and sisters at large. Your critical one liners deny everything and what everybody said without a commitment to the truth that you have. Let us seek the mind of God on such behavior. Leviticus 5:1 says; "And if a soul sin, and hear the voice of swearing, and is a witness, whether he hath seen or known of it; if he do not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity." I am the first to say that we are not under the Law of Moses. But from it we glean how God thinks on matters. You have the truth - now write it down. I have time if you need three pages to prove the Apostles are under the new Covenant. Your task should be easy easy. In 2nd Corinthians 3, in the passage under discussion, the word "ministers", "minister" and "ministry" appears about seven times. All of them come from the root of "diakonos". Pray, give us your exegesis on the section, say verses 3 to 9, and show that the Apostles are under the New Covenant.

              Or, seeing that general context is the defense of Paul's Apostleship, is the "Administrator" of the New Covenant in verse 6 used as an example like;
              1. the proof of their "ministry" of the epistle of in verse 3 is the saints themselves?
              2. the Law is an "administrator" of death in verse 7
              3. the "administration" of the Holy Spirit in verse 8
              4. the "administrator" of condemnation in verse 9
              5. the "administrator" of righteousness in verse 9

              I wait, with anticipation, your exegesis that will show this passage putting the Apostles under the New Covenant.
              1. Yes, the apostles are under the New Covenant.
              2. Yes, Paul says in v-3-5 that the Administrator or Mediator of the NC is proof of their ministry.
              3. Yes, the Law is an administrator of death v-7
              4. Yes-v8
              5. Yes -v9
              6. Verse 9 has both old and new covenants - the former of condemnation and the latter of righteousness and glory.

              Comment


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

                Originally posted by Walls View Post
                The end of the matter is that you can't provide any proof from 2nd Corinthians 3 that the Church is under the New Covenant. You claim to have the truth, yet above is just copy and pasting of the texts under discussion. You are great at one critical liners. But you can't string three sentences together to show the point under discussion. And if we do ask you for this grand truth you claim to have, you answer that we "whine, cry and lie" about you. But every reader knows that my request for exegesis on 2nd Corinthians 3:6 was formal, reasonable and to the point for it is the only verse in the whole New Testament that brings together Apostles and the New Covenant. But ... I have yet to see you string a coherent argument together. Your criticism is big, your exegesis is non-existent. 1st Corinthians 3 speaks of us being "builders of the Church". You are are a "breaker down".
                if this isn't coherent enough for you then it explains why you are so confused about the NC.

                "made us able ministers of the new testament"? Who's he talking to and what is he talking about? Is there a distinction made towards Israel only, or is he talking to Jew and Gentile? "Christ's gospel" "in them that are saved" " savour of his knowledge" "savour of life" "speak we in Christ" all synonymous with "the new testament.

                Paul's point is the apostles ministry to the church. Able ministers of the new testament. It's so simple. Why do you need a book written by a man to explain to you?

                Comment


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

                  Originally posted by Noeb View Post
                  if this isn't coherent enough for you then it explains why you are so confused about the NC.

                  "made us able ministers of the new testament"? Who's he talking to and what is he talking about? Is there a distinction made towards Israel only, or is he talking to Jew and Gentile? "Christ's gospel" "in them that are saved" " savour of his knowledge" "savour of life" "speak we in Christ" all synonymous with "the new testament.

                  Paul's point is the apostles ministry to the church. Able ministers of the new testament. It's so simple. Why do you need a book written by a man to explain to you?
                  You would do well to pay more attention to what you read than what what you believe the scriptures say.

                  Verse list:
                  2Co 3 KJV Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you? Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men: 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. And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward: Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God; Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away: How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth. For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious. Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away. Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.

                  Paul truly is the minister of the new covenant, but it is the ministration of the spirit and not of the letter (of the law). Paul says that it the epistle of Christ that is written on the hearts of believers, referring to the testimony of the life of Christ. This is the same thing in Romans 2 when Paul refers to the work of the law being written on Gentile hearts:

                  Rom 2:14 For when the [believing] Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
                  15. Which shew the WORK OF THE LAW written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

                  Ministering of the NC is not the same as the execution of the same. If a man comes preaching to the 2nd coming of Jesus, does that mean that Christ has already come back? Even tho it is prophetically certain to happen, it is not prophetically fulfilled.

                  You think the application of the NC to both Jews and Gentiles supports your position? You better read things again. Paul not only says that the vail of the old covenant is still blinding the hearts of most Jews, but also that there is a day that is yet future in which God will remove the vail from the collective hearts of Israel. God has not implemented the NC because the house of Israel remains in unbelief and the very fact that the NC is with the whole house of Israel. Christ is the mediator of the new covenant, BECAUSE he is the great high priest who stands within the holy place before God almighty, and will rightly judge those worthy to enter the kingdom of God. The kingdom of heaven is fraught with many who do not know the Lord Jesus. But that is not what the new covenant is about. There it says that ALL shall know me.

                  *[[Jer 31:34]] KJV* And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall ALL know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

                  *[[Mat 7:21]] KJV* NOT EVERY ONE that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. MANY will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

                  Does that sound like everyone that you know that claims the salvation "found in the New Covenant" knows the LORD? How can anyone think that believing in Christ enters one into the New Covenant, is beyond me.

                  Blessings
                  The PuP

                  Comment


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

                    Originally posted by Pesachpup View Post
                    Ministering of the NC is not the same as the execution of the same.
                    Listen to yourself! The liberty in the Spirit is not the execution of the NC? C'mon!


                    Originally posted by Pesachpup View Post
                    If a man comes preaching to the 2nd coming of Jesus, does that mean that Christ has already come back?
                    You'll have to do much much better than that. Preaching the second coming is not the NC. Do you not see a huge difference?

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by Trivalee View Post
                      Forgive me for wading in. A lot has been written and I'm not sure what the reference to 2 Cor 3:6 is all about? I may be wrong, but you seem to demand proof that this text confirms that the apostles are under the New Covenant? If this is your query, then I'll answer as follows:

                      2 Cor 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

                      Without quoting too much scripture, Paul had laid the foundation of their (Do we [plural-apostles] begin to commend ourselves) ministry/work to preach Christ. Characteristic of his humility, he says in v-5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think anything as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;. A clear statement that they (Apostles) are not claiming that the feat is by their own power, but of God.

                      After his remarks in v-6 (which is about the NC), he contrasts it with the Old Covenant v-7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:

                      Paul's argument is as plain as day; while the new covenant is spiritual and based on faith with the spirit which gives life (not the letter which kills), the Old, in contrast, written on stone was so terrifying that the children of Israel could not behold the face of Moses - yet despite its apparent glory, it was done away on account of its weakness (Heb 9:7). Still comparing the covenants, Paul asks rhetorically:

                      v-8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit (NC) be rather glorious?

                      9 For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.

                      10 For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.

                      11 For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.


                      As I said from the start, I'm not completely sure of what you wanted from the text (2 Cor 3:6); but if you're a making a case that v-6 excludes the Apostles and the Church from the NC, I sure hope that this little exegesis proves you wrong.
                      I think you're on solid ground. Put another way, the testimony about God and His holiness under the Old Covenant precluded an eternal relationship between God and Man. The glory of God had to fade away from Man, no matter how saintly, because a holy God could not eternally remain with unsanctified Man.

                      Under the Old Covenant Israel was only sanctified temporarily. They were forgiven only until they sinned again.

                      And Man was, by nature, a regular sinner. We are, in fact, born in sin and have a sinful nature. So God cannot permanently remain with us this way, but can only offer a temporary cure until He establishes an eternal covenant with us.

                      That eternal covenant was made with us at the cross. And this is where the New Covenant began. That's why Jesus offered up the wine at Passover as a representation of his blood on the cross. And that's why he offered his bread--as a representation of his bodily life--a life we can have intertwined eternally with our own.

                      Our eternal life began at the cross and when we accepted his life. When we choose his life we reject our autonomy without him. We live in eternal union with him.

                      This is the New Covenant. It began at the cross. And according to Bible Prophecy, it will manifest a national salvation in Israel when they are delivered from international persecution.

                      That means the whole nation will come to embrace Christianity, just as many non-Jewish nations have in the past. The "first will be last." Israel was the 1st nation to hear the Gospel. But they will be the last nation to accept it.

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by Trivalee View Post
                        1. Yes, the apostles are under the New Covenant.
                        2. Yes, Paul says in v-3-5 that the Administrator or Mediator of the NC is proof of their ministry.
                        3. Yes, the Law is an administrator of death v-7
                        4. Yes-v8
                        5. Yes -v9
                        6. Verse 9 has both old and new covenants - the former of condemnation and the latter of righteousness and glory.
                        Originally posted by Noeb View Post
                        if this isn't coherent enough for you then it explains why you are so confused about the NC.

                        "made us able ministers of the new testament"? Who's he talking to and what is he talking about? Is there a distinction made towards Israel only, or is he talking to Jew and Gentile? "Christ's gospel" "in them that are saved" " savour of his knowledge" "savour of life" "speak we in Christ" all synonymous with "the new testament.

                        Paul's point is the apostles ministry to the church. Able ministers of the new testament. It's so simple. Why do you need a book written by a man to explain to you?
                        The point was, how is the word "administrator" used in connection with the what it administrated? This is why I asked for exegesis. You both just stated previous claims without a single bit of exegesis. But I will explain.

                        First, we can all agree that according to the plain language, the Apostles are NOT said to be under the New Covenant. It says that God has made them able "ADMINISTRATORS" of it. That is, the Apostles exercised power over the Covenant, not the reverse. But if you insist that it so, let us see what absurdity it causes when we apply your understanding to the other "Administrators".
                        • Verse 3. Are those who have been ministered too and converted over the Apostles? Or are there TWO entities, (i) the Apostles influencing (ii) the converts?
                        • Verse 6 is the verse under scrutiny. I leave its conclusion to be set by the other verses.
                        • Verse 7. The Law, engraven on stones "Administered" Death. Was the engraven Law under the authority of death. Or did it have influence over the other?
                        • Verse 8. The "Administration" of the Spirit made converts. Is the Spirit subject to the converts? Or does the Spirit - One Thing, influence the other - converts?
                        • Verse 9. Did the Administration of Law that causes death mean that the Law was under death? Or was the Law dictating death on sinners?
                        • Verse 9. Did righteousness as an "administrator", subject itself or did it influence the state of those who it administrated?

                        The answers are obvious. The "Administrator" was NEVER under the power of what it administrated. It dictated the terms. So verse 6 must be the same. The Apostles exercise power over the New Testament, not the other way around that you claim.

                        I leave the text under discussion for your reference.

                        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.
                        4 And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward:
                        5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;
                        6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
                        7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:
                        8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?
                        9 For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory."

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by Noeb View Post
                          Listen to yourself! The liberty in the Spirit is not the execution of the NC? C'mon!


                          You'll have to do much much better than that. Preaching the second coming is not the NC. Do you not see a huge difference?
                          Rev 19:10... The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. Apostles, prophets, teachers, pastors, et al, are all part of the administration and gifts of the Lord Jesus and the Holy Ghost. The workings of the operations of God [1 Cor 12] are all done "in part" by the members of the body of Christ UNTIL that which is perfect is come and then they shall be done away:

                          1Co 13:9,10: For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

                          When God MAKES the new covenant with the Houser of Israel it is with the whole house and not just in part [As a Gentile believer, you are a part of that house, right? ]. The ministries of God, which includes that of the NC, is done as part of time when the gospel is being taken to all of the world, UNTIL the gospel has been given to all nations. As Isa 66 and Jeremiah 16 declare, that the LORD will send out messengers, hunters and fishers of men, [who survived the great day of his wrath, the time of Jacobs trouble] unto the nations... to those who have not heard of nor seen the glory of God

                          *[[Isa 66:19]] KJV* And I will set a sign among them, and I will send those that escape of them unto the nations, to Tarshish, Pul, and Lud, that draw the bow, to Tubal, and Javan, to the isles afar off, that have not heard my fame, neither have seen my glory; and they shall declare my glory among the Gentiles.
                          20. And they shall bring all your brethren for an offering unto the LORD out of all nations upon horses, and in chariots, and in litters, and upon mules, and upon swift beasts, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, saith the LORD, as the children of Israel bring an offering in a clean vessel into the house of the LORD.

                          *[[Jer 16:16]] KJV* Behold, I will send for many fishers, saith the LORD, and they shall fish them; and after will I send for many hunters, and they shall hunt them from every mountain, and from every hill, and out of the holes of the rocks.
                          17. For mine eyes are upon all their ways: they are not hid from my face, neither is their iniquity hid from mine eyes.
                          18. And first I will recompense their iniquity and their sin double; because they have defiled my land, they have filled mine inheritance with the carcases of their detestable and abominable things.

                          Do you not see that the execution/ making of the new covenant takes place in the days that immediately follow the time of Jacobs trouble, Jer 30:7?

                          *[[Heb 8:10]] KJV* For this is the covenant that I will MAKE with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

                          The use of the words "made" and "make", in regards to the new covenant, declare that it is with the WHOLE house of Israel, and not just with a part. The ministry of Paul the apostle (and many others since then) involves the times "of the part", when only a remnant, a small part of Israel is standing in the realm of grace.

                          *[[Rom 11:5]] KJV* Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
                          6. And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
                          7. What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded...
                          *[[Rom 11:25]] KJV* For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

                          These are all things that you should know and believe.

                          Blessings
                          The PuP

                          Originally posted by Noeb View Post
                          Listen to yourself! The liberty in the Spirit is not the execution of the NC? C'mon!


                          You'll have to do much much better than that. Preaching the second coming is not the NC. Do you not see a huge difference?
                          Rev 19:10... The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. Apostles, prophets, teachers, pastors, et al, are all part of the administration and gifts of the Lord Jesus and the Holy Ghost. The workings of the operations of God [1 Cor 12] are all done "in part" by the members of the body of Christ UNTIL that which is perfect is come and then they shall be done away:

                          1Co 13:9,10: For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

                          When God MAKES the new covenant with the Houser of Israel it is with the whole house and not just in part [As a Gentile believer, you are a part of that house, right? ]. The ministries of God, which includes that of the NC, is done as part of time when the gospel is being taken to all of the world, UNTIL the gospel has been given to all nations. As Isa 66 and Jeremiah 16 declare, that the LORD will send out messengers, hunters and fishers of men, [who survived the great day of his wrath, the time of Jacobs trouble] unto the nations... to those who have not heard of nor seen the glory of God

                          *[[Isa 66:19]] KJV* And I will set a sign among them, and I will send those that escape of them unto the nations, to Tarshish, Pul, and Lud, that draw the bow, to Tubal, and Javan, to the isles afar off, that have not heard my fame, neither have seen my glory; and they shall declare my glory among the Gentiles.
                          20. And they shall bring all your brethren for an offering unto the LORD out of all nations upon horses, and in chariots, and in litters, and upon mules, and upon swift beasts, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, saith the LORD, as the children of Israel bring an offering in a clean vessel into the house of the LORD.

                          *[[Jer 16:16]] KJV* Behold, I will send for many fishers, saith the LORD, and they shall fish them; and after will I send for many hunters, and they shall hunt them from every mountain, and from every hill, and out of the holes of the rocks.
                          17. For mine eyes are upon all their ways: they are not hid from my face, neither is their iniquity hid from mine eyes.
                          18. And first I will recompense their iniquity and their sin double; because they have defiled my land, they have filled mine inheritance with the carcases of their detestable and abominable things.

                          Do you not see that the execution/ making of the new covenant takes place in the days that immediately follow the time of Jacobs trouble, Jer 30:7?

                          *[[Heb 8:10]] KJV* For this is the covenant that I will MAKE with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

                          The use of the words "made" and "make", in regards to the new covenant, declare that it is with the WHOLE house of Israel, and not just with a part. The ministry of Paul the apostle (and many others since then) involves the times "of the part", when only a remnant, a small part of Israel is standing in the realm of grace.

                          *[[Rom 11:5]] KJV* Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
                          6. And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
                          7. What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded...
                          *[[Rom 11:25]] KJV* For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

                          These are all things that you should know and believe.

                          Blessings
                          The PuP

                          Comment


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

                            *[[2Co 3:9]] KJV* For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.

                            The administration of the the first covenant was unto condemnation, because men were sinners that could not keep that covenant, thereby it is the ministration of death. But the administration of the new covenant WILL BE [not is] the ministration of righteousness because this new covenant of law (written on the hearts) will be the covenant that men will keep and not break. We are currently walking under the ministry of the spirit of grace and not under the law. We have liberty because we are not [yet] under the covenant of law. The old covenant of law brought death (and not liberty) because the penalty for not keeping the law was death. Likewise, the New Covenant of law will not be a covenant of death NOR WILL IT BE a covenant of liberty, because men will be keeping this new covenant WITHOUT SIN! The law of liberty is found only under the ministration of the spirit of grace. There is no liberty when one is under the law, whether it be the law of the old covenant or of the new. There is no liberty within the confines of the law. So, the ONLY way that there won't be any death under the new covenant of law written on men's hearts is because there will be NO SIN.

                            *[[1Jn 1:8]] KJV* If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

                            Blessings
                            The PuP

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by Pesachpup View Post
                              *[[2Co 3:9]] KJV* For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.

                              The administration of the the first covenant was unto condemnation, because men were sinners that could not keep that covenant, thereby it is the ministration of death. But the administration of the new covenant WILL BE [not is] the ministration of righteousness because this new covenant of law (written on the hearts) will be the covenant that men will keep and not break. We are currently walking under the ministry of the spirit of grace and not under the law. We have liberty because we are not [yet] under the covenant of law. The old covenant of law brought death (and not liberty) because the penalty for not keeping the law was death. Likewise, the New Covenant of law will not be a covenant of death NOR WILL IT BE a covenant of liberty, because men will be keeping this new covenant WITHOUT SIN! The law of liberty is found only under the ministration of the spirit of grace. There is no liberty when one is under the law, whether it be the law of the old covenant or of the new. There is no liberty within the confines of the law. So, the ONLY way that there won't be any death under the new covenant of law written on men's hearts is because there will be NO SIN.

                              *[[1Jn 1:8]] KJV* If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

                              Blessings
                              The PuP
                              Nice .

                              Comment


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

                                Originally posted by Walls View Post
                                First, we can all agree that according to the plain language, the Apostles are NOT said to be under the New Covenant. It says that God has made them able "ADMINISTRATORS" of it. That is, the Apostles exercised power over the Covenant, not the reverse.
                                The following didn't apply to the apostles? "Christ's gospel" "in them that are saved" " savour of his knowledge" "savour of life" "speak we in Christ"

                                That they ministered what they had not lived and experienced and were living and experiencing is absurd. It plainly says "we all", not just you converts. It says "we have such hope" not just you converts. It says "we have this ministry, as we have received mercy". The plain language places the apostles as participants of the NC they ministered to others.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X