Page 3 of 83 FirstFirst 123456789101112131453 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 1234

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

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    In the Midwest.
    Posts
    6,005

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    Another question, will Jesus die a second time before the New Covenant becomes operative?
    Apparently not. Hebrews 9:15 - And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. Verse 28 - so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.
    Galatians 6:14 - But God forbid that I should boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    11,998

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls View Post
    Then answer
    1. with proof that "THAT DAY" of Jeremiah 31:31 has passed and BOTH Houses of Israel were resurrected and assembled to receive the Covenant
    2. the points in my previous posting and I will be satisfied.
    Jesus said he established the NC with his blood. You're just going to have to deal with that.

    That day? What day? Jer 31:31 doesn't say that day, and why you inject the necessity of resurrection is beyond anyone, I promise you.


    Quote Originally Posted by Walls View Post
    He further states that ONLY THEN, in the Millennial Kingdom of God, it will be fulfilled.
    Delusion.


    [QUOTE=Walls;3483317]And then He institutes a New Ritual with bread and a cup which must be celebrated "till He comes" (1st Cor.11:26). So please explain ...
    1. Why our Lord will not eat of the Passover for 2,000 years but then eat of it again?
    2. Why our Lord Jesus, who you have repeatedly said is the fulfillment of the Passover, says that it will only be fulfilled in the Millennium?
    3. Why our Lord, Who said not one jot or tittle of the Law will pass until after the Millennium, refuses the Passover for 2,000 years?
    4. On what basis do you say the Law is "obsolete" when the Passover, one of the Covenants of the Law, and an integral part of it, will be feasted by no less than Emanuel when He returns?
    5. Why our Lord institutes bread and wine as a memorial and promptly decides not to partake of the vine again for 2,000 years?
    1 He doesn't wanna/hafta? He just wants to wait til he's on earth with those of faith to do so. So?
    2 He didn't
    3 He didn't. He said the natural/moral/spirit of the law (context) endures as long as the earth, which is forever.
    4 The law was obsolete long before Jesus came. God departed, and man was just exercising religion. However ceremony/ritual in its proper place is a beautiful thing. That's all Jesus was and will do. It's not efficacious and hasn't been since God departed, which was long before Jesus came.
    5 see 4


    Quote Originally Posted by Walls View Post
    I understand if you refuse this little exercise, but then you must stop saying that the Law is "abolished" and/0r "obsolete". It is ONLY SO FOR THE CHURCH AND NOT ISRAEL!
    Context is the moral/natural/spirit of the law. Not destroyed. It amazes me that people say it's destroyed while using Jesus' words that it's not. But then look at some of the things you have said. Don't get me wrong, I have thought some of the same things, but not void of doubt. Because what both side say doesn't jive with scripture. What does jive with scripture is that the law endures forever and Jesus shed his blood to institute the NC.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    2,451
    Blog Entries
    4

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    Another question, will Jesus die a second time before the New Covenant becomes operative?
    This question is just to try to put people in a corner so they will accept they are in the New Covenant, but it isn't a good question at all since Hebrews 9:28 answers this: « So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many ... ». Doesn't it strike anybody it says « many », not « all »? This is because in Hebrews it is about the New Covenant with Israel, in 2 Cor. 5:15 it says « And that he died for all ... » this is not about the New Covenant that is only with Israel.

    Quote Originally Posted by Noeb View Post
    Good question for these confused brothers. Jesus said, "this is my blood of the new covenant". Pretty plain, if you ask me.
    Yes it is pretty plain, but where does this say it was shed for the new covenant with the Gentiles? Right, nowhere.

    Aristarkos

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    11,998

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarkos View Post
    Yes it is pretty plain, but where does this say it was shed for the new covenant with the Gentiles? Right, nowhere.

    Aristarkos
    Paul didn't know what he was talking about wen he included Gentiles (1Cor 11)?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarkos View Post
    Yes it is pretty plain, but where does this say it was shed for the new covenant with the Gentiles? Right, nowhere.

    Aristarkos
    Paul didn't know what he was talking about wen he included Gentiles (1Cor 11)?

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    2,451
    Blog Entries
    4

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Noeb View Post
    Paul didn't know what he was talking about wen he included Gentiles (1Cor 11)?
    Paul is looking back on what the Lord did with Israelite, not Gentiles you know that do you? What makes you think he talks to Gentiles here? Paul went first to the Jew then to the Greek. The so called lords supper was only with Jews.

    Aristarkos

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    11,998

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

    What makes you think he's only talking to Israel here?

    1 Corinthians 11:17-34 (NET) Now in giving the following instruction I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse.
    For in the first place, when you come together as a church I hear there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it.
    For there must in fact be divisions among you, so that those of you who are approved may be evident.
    Now when you come together at the same place, you are not really eating the Lord’s Supper.
    For when it is time to eat, everyone proceeds with his own supper. One is hungry and another becomes drunk.
    Do you not have houses so that you can eat and drink? Or are you trying to show contempt for the church of God by shaming those who have nothing? What should I say to you? Should I praise you? I will not praise you for this!
    For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night in which he was betrayed took bread,
    and after he had given thanks he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
    In the same way, he also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, every time you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
    For every time you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
    For this reason, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
    A person should examine himself first, and in this way let him eat the bread and drink of the cup.
    For the one who eats and drinks without careful regard for the body eats and drinks judgment against himself.
    That is why many of you are weak and sick, and quite a few are dead.
    But if we examined ourselves, we would not be judged.
    But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned with the world.
    So then, my brothers and sisters, when you come together to eat, wait for one another.
    If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that when you assemble it does not lead to judgment. I will give directions about other matters when I come.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    7,545
    Blog Entries
    13

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarkos View Post
    We've been their before and then you said I didn't know what I was talking about or words to that effect. So let's look seriously at Ephesians 2, what is Paul saying there? Epesians 2 can be divided in two parts 1 — 10 and 11 — 22.

    In the first part, Paul draws us the spiritual condition: formerly walked in sins and crimes, children of disobedience. But made alive by God, raised up with Christ and set in the over-heavenly. These are all spiritual conditions. — In the second part more the difference in position with respect to Israel emerges: former Gentiles in the flesh, without Christ, alienated from Israel's citizenship, strangers from the covenants of promise, without hope and without God. But now came close, no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God.

    In this chapter we find « time past » twice. In time past walked to the aion of this world, v. 2, in time past Gentiles in the flesh, v. 11. At that time they were also without Christ and alienated from Israel's citizenship, v. 12. That is, not having a part in it as opposing strangers. About what time do you believe this is? Acts?

    The only mention of a covenant is in v. 12 « the covenant of promise ». What is the covenant of promise? This is not the new covenant, but the covenant that Paul discusses in Gal. 3:15 — 29. So again Paul is walking back to his previous ministry in his first 7 letters. Therefore it has nothing to do with the new covenant, but with the promises made to Abraham.

    Aristarkos
    Despite recognising the contrast between verses 1-10 and 11-22 you sadly dropped the ball and erred in your conclusion. The texts that argue for the integration of the Gentile into the promises made to Israel are from 11-22. The *time past* in the narrative refers to the Old Testament/Covenant. Therefore, in time past/OT, Gentiles were excluded as strangers from the household of God.

    But by his death which ushered in the new covenant, Jesus made peace between the Jew and Gentile: Eph 2:14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Jew/Gentile. Having made us ONE spiritually, it is a silly argument to claim that Gentiles are not part of the NC.

    Your reference to God's promise to Abraham concerning Jesus Christ shows you're still lacking the full understanding of the New Covenant. One must be in Christ by faith to partake of the New Covenant and Paul had earlier argued that those in faith are the children of Abraham.

    Gal 3:7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. 8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

    If we accept the infallibility of scripture, then an immutable case has been made in Ephesians 2 that the believing Jew and Gentile are now ONE in spirit. Therefore, it makes no sense to deny the Gentile from the benefits of the NC. That said, what is now left is to prove that the NC is already in force and not when Jesus returns as you believe. In this case, I have already provided extensive passages in my previous posts showing that the new covenant started on the cross. The Holy Ghost (God's Spirit in our hearts) sent on Pentecost is now reminding the faithful of the law of God as both Jeremiah and Jesus Christ (John 14:26) prophecied.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    7,545
    Blog Entries
    13

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Old man View Post
    I had to delete your post to Walls to fix the issue. Please repost you response to Walls if you can.
    I've already done that. Thank you very much for stepping in.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    2,451
    Blog Entries
    4

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    Despite recognising the contrast between verses 1-10 and 11-22 you sadly dropped the ball and erred in your conclusion. The texts that argue for the integration of the Gentile into the promises made to Israel are from 11-22. The *time past* in the narrative refers to the Old Testament/Covenant. Therefore, in time past/OT, Gentiles were excluded as strangers from the household of God.

    But by his death which ushered in the new covenant, Jesus made peace between the Jew and Gentile: Eph 2:14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Jew/Gentile. Having made us ONE spiritually, it is a silly argument to claim that Gentiles are not part of the NC.

    Your reference to God's promise to Abraham concerning Jesus Christ shows you're still lacking the full understanding of the New Covenant. One must be in Christ by faith to partake of the New Covenant and Paul had earlier argued that those in faith are the children of Abraham.

    Gal 3:7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. 8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

    If we accept the infallibility of scripture, then an immutable case has been made in Ephesians 2 that the believing Jew and Gentile are now ONE in spirit. Therefore, it makes no sense to deny the Gentile from the benefits of the NC. That said, what is now left is to prove that the NC is already in force and not when Jesus returns as you believe. In this case, I have already provided extensive passages in my previous posts showing that the new covenant started on the cross. The Holy Ghost (God's Spirit in our hearts) sent on Pentecost is now reminding the faithful of the law of God as both Jeremiah and Jesus Christ (John 14:26) prophecied.
    Thank you, I'll be waiting for the Scripture that says the Gentiles are in the New Covenant, so far all I heard is flawed doctrine, I'll quote the twice repeated Scripture both in O.T. and N.T. that it is for Israel and Judah:

    Jer. 31:31, 32 « Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD »

    Heb. 8:8, 9 « For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will complete a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord ».

    Aristarkos

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    7,545
    Blog Entries
    13

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Noeb View Post
    Good question for these confused brothers. Jesus said, "this is my blood of the new covenant". Pretty plain, if you ask me.
    Strangely, they claim that even though the new covenant started at the cross, Jesus somehow *suspended* its application until he Returns. That's as ludicrous as their case is

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    7,545
    Blog Entries
    13

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls View Post
    1. For the Church yes. For Israel NO! Israel rejected and still rejects Christ's efficacy. They remain under the First Covenant. Christ's efficacy is by FAITH and Israel, "are concluded, by God, to be in UNBELIEF ... until the fullness of the Gentiles is complete" (Rom.11:26, 32)
    2. Only for Jews who converted to Christianity. For Israel all remains the same. There is no clause in the Covenant of Sinai that relieves them of it.
    3. I wish you would post verses for such statements. It would make discussion much easier. Or maybe there is no verse to back this up ....
    4. By design, or accident - I may not judge, but you have just replaced the Covenant of PROMISE with that of LAW, which was given 430 years later. Secondly, Ephesians is addressed to BELIEVERS - not Israel who are in unbelief. We discuss Israel my brother. The "ye" and "us" of Ephesians 2:12-14 addresses Christians.
    1. That Israel rejected Christ doesn't mean there's a different pathway for them to eternal life! If they are still under the First Covenant as you claim, what about the Apostles and thousands of Jews that have believed in Christ since the 1st-century? Where do you place them?

    2. Your argument here doesn't make sense, you said for: "Only for Jews who converted to Christianity. For Israel, all remains the same". Are you by any chance saying that the Jews that converted to Christianity are no longer part of Israel? This is obviously a problem for you because, on the one hand, we have Isreali converts in Christ and on the other, the majority that remains in unbelief. I will keep coming at you until you explain the fate of Jewish Christians given your position that the NC is still future?

    3. Huh I said that the moral commandments remain i.e. the 10 Commandments. Also, Jesus said he has not come to destroy but to fulfil the law (Matt 5:17). But with regards to the ordinances embodied in animal sacrifices, scripture says:

    Heb 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

    Furthermore, to replace these ordinances Jesus became not only the mediator of the New Covenant, but our eternal High Priest. This means that in place of the daily sacrifices, Jesus made a one-off sacrifice with his flesh for the remission of sins (Heb 10:12).

    4. Understandably, your comment suggests that you're still missing the fact that the New Covenant is the cornerstone of our eternal life. And this is what God meant when he told Abraham that the heathen will be justified through faith (Gal 3:8).

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    2,451
    Blog Entries
    4

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Noeb View Post
    What makes you think he's only talking to Israel here?

    1 Corinthians 11:17-34 (NET) Now in giving the following instruction I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse.
    For in the first place, when you come together as a church I hear there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it.
    For there must in fact be divisions among you, so that those of you who are approved may be evident.
    Now when you come together at the same place, you are not really eating the Lord’s Supper.
    For when it is time to eat, everyone proceeds with his own supper. One is hungry and another becomes drunk.
    Do you not have houses so that you can eat and drink? Or are you trying to show contempt for the church of God by shaming those who have nothing? What should I say to you? Should I praise you? I will not praise you for this!
    For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night in which he was betrayed took bread,
    and after he had given thanks he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
    In the same way, he also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, every time you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
    For every time you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
    For this reason, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
    A person should examine himself first, and in this way let him eat the bread and drink of the cup.
    For the one who eats and drinks without careful regard for the body eats and drinks judgment against himself.
    That is why many of you are weak and sick, and quite a few are dead.
    But if we examined ourselves, we would not be judged.
    But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned with the world.
    So then, my brothers and sisters, when you come together to eat, wait for one another.
    If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that when you assemble it does not lead to judgment. I will give directions about other matters when I come.
    The problem is that you do not want different groups while God in his purpose prepares different groups. I'm not sure you are aware that the « protestant » church used to believe they took the place of Israel. When Israel came back into the land after ± 1900 years this idea faded and Israel's position in Scripture became more accepted. With that we had two groups, Israel and « the » Church.

    What most were not be able to let go were the promises made to Israel, « the » Church wanted to be part of the New Covenant. This idea is based on that all that was written in Scripture about Israel, should be read about « the Church ». This idea was never fully released. Most fervent defenders of this have just taken over the teaching of the Church — which is subject to change as we saw — and did not investigate Scripture themselves.

    To understand the N.T. one has to understand the O.T.. In the O.T. the New Covenant is already mentioned but named different, for example in Gen. 17:7 « And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee ». God names it different here because this is before the Old Covenant with Israel. The word translated by « everlasting » is just that, translation and wrong as well. The word used is a form of « olam ». The verb « olam » means to hide, so an olam hides something, the length of its duration. Because « everlasting » ends, as we can see phrases like « olam va ed » which means « the olam and further ». Or 1 Chron. 16:36 which says « Blessed be the LORD God of Israel for ever and ever », which almost everybody seems to think is just a way of emphasizing the never begun endlessness. The Hebrew however has « olam to olam ». In Greek the word Olam is « aion », in Ephesians 3:11 Paul says God made a purpose of the aions.

    So the aionic covenant should have lasted the complete run of the current aion, but Israel broke it, so it didn't, yet God promised Abraham it would be aionic, everlasting. So the Jehovah of the O.T. lays down His Glory and becomes the Man Jesus Christ, a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers. What was promised to the fathers of Israel? An olamic of aionic covenant which would take effect when this aion is closed. Hence when the Lord returns in the then starting aion.

    When we read about the Old Covenant, it is clear it is an « agreement » to keep the whole Law as we can read in Exo. 19:8 « And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the LORD », this covenant was sealed with blood, Exo. 24:7, 8 « And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient. And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words ».

    So Jehovah/Jesus Christ has to keep His promises made to the Fathers, after all « God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good? » Num. 23:19, what God promises God delivers to those He promised it to. Israel. So when we read in the N.T. that Jesus Christ shed His blood for the New Covenant it means this is the promises made unto their (Israel's) fathers. What else has to be apparent from the above that this covenant is about keeping the Law as was the first or old. That's why Rom. 15:8 says « Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers ». In the New Covenant Israel has to keep the Law just as well as under the Old Covenant, with a few small differences but still the Law, so statutes, sacrifices (not for sin, that of Christ was more then sufficient), temple, priestly service and circumcision. Proof for this is everywhere in Scripture, for example Eze. 44:9 « Thus saith the Lord GOD; No stranger, uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel ». A circumcised heart points to regeneration, which the Lord calls the coming aion in Mat. 19:28.

    Now where are the gentiles in all this? Nowhere, the New Covenant is for Israel, not for the Gentiles.

    Aristarkos

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    7,545
    Blog Entries
    13

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls View Post
    a. Hebrews 15:26 is a typo. You probably meant 9:26. Hebrews is written to EX-Jews who have converted to Christians (Heb.3:1). Christ's efficacy does not extend to Israel yet. They refused it and are Lo-Ammi - "you are NOT my people".

    b. I am astounded that you can make such a statement without a single verse. And I am even more astounded that you can watch Israel presently bearing the full brunt of the curses of the First Covenant and say they have the new Covenant. Where is the House of Israel today? They were carried to Assyria and have never returned. Where is the House of Judah today? They were carried off to Babylon and only 2.5% returned, only to be thoroughly hammered, defeated and deported in 70 AD. Is the Holocaust of 1940-1945 a result of the Israel keeping the New Covenant? Is the dispersion of more than half of presently known Israelites among the nations proof of the new Covenant in force? Let me read what God said would happen to Israel if they broke the New Covenant. Jeremiah 31:33-37 says;

    33 "But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
    ....
    36 "If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.
    37 Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off ALL the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD."
    1. I've repeatedly told you there's no such thing as an ex-Jew. There are ex-Judaics, but no ex or former Jew. It is the same way, you can't have an ex-American, ex-Englishman or ex-Chineseman. Being Jewish among other things is an "ethnicity". It's not a garment you can put on and off! By claiming that the efficacy of Christ does not extend to Israel, are you suggesting that God will provide them with a different pathway to eternal life? Unbelieving Israel is Lo-Ammi - "you are NOT my people". But those that believe are His people.

    2. I am equally astounded that despite being a mature Christian and scholar, you still lack understanding of the fundamentals of the NT doctrine encapsulated in the New Covenant. Through Jeremiah, God said:

    * He will put his laws in their hearts - this is being fulfilled today by the indwelling Spirit of God in the hearts and minds of the faithful.
    * The Law in the heart is God's precepts - the law of Christ (Gal 6:2).

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls View Post
    Consider this my brother. If the New Covenant is in force, and Israel break the "ordinances" of it, God will wipe out Israel forever. So, with half of Israel not going down to Jerusalem thrice a year with their tithes, and with half of Israel refusing to live in the Good Land, and with ALL of Israel not killing the morning and evening oblation in the Temple - I mean BIG transgressions of the "ordinances", how then does Israel still exist. But if the INSTITUTION of the New Covenant is yet future, then Israel is yet under the First and its chastisement - exactly what we see with our eyes today.
    By his death, Jesus ended the ordinances you described above. They are now obsolete. The OT is no more. In Heb 10:16-20 the Writer reminded his readers that Christ is the fulfilment of the promised NC. And verses 17-20 associates the new covenant with the remission of sins.

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls View Post
    c. Here, you have contradicted yourself. In one breath you say that Matthew 5:17-19 is valid. That is, "... one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." And verse 19 speaks of the "LEAST of the commandments" being valid. And then you throw out two thirds of this Law which is made up of the dietary, clothing, sexual and agricultural "ordinances" with the Temple service PLUS the Covenants that are contained in them like that of the Priesthood and the Passover. C'mon brother. None greater than our Lord Jesus has emphatically stated (with a threat) that not one jot or tittle will pass UNTIL heaven and earth pass. This is only AFTER the Millennium!
    Heb 7:19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

    Again, the fact no one was able to follow the law and ordinances to the letter was the reason Jesus had to come to end it and bring in the New.

    Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry [present tense], by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls View Post
    Let me make one comment. If I said that Christ's efficacy applies to all men and that all men, whether they believe in Christ or not, are saved, I would get kicked of this Forum. Yet, you say that Christ's efficacy applies to Israel while they are in unbelief! Is this not an overthrow of the foundation of our doctrine? Are you not close to universalism? Christ's work has various facets. He has, by His life, death and resurrection fulfilled all the Law and the Sacrifices - BUT ONLY FOR A MAN WHO BELIEVES IN HIM! The infidel has NO PROFIT from them AND ISRAEL ARE IN UNBELIEF TILL THE AGE CLOSES! Beware! You walk on a knife edge!
    You quoted me out of context (in red above) but I know it's down to your misunderstanding of my position. So I will elaborate; the New Covenant ONLY applies to those [Jew/Gentile] who believe in the Mediator - Jesus Christ! The unbelieving Jew is no different to the unbelieving Gentile. So ALL the faithful (Jew/Gentile) are co-heirs and partakers of the new covenant. Why? Because it is anchored in faith rather than the works of the law.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    11,998

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

    Aristarkos, you didn't answer the question.
    "What makes you think he's only talking to Israel here? 1 Corinthians 11:17-34"


    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarkos View Post
    The problem is that you do not want different groups
    Where have I said or indicated this?

    Aristarkos, you didn't answer the question.
    "What makes you think he's only talking to Israel here? 1 Corinthians 11:17-34"


    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarkos View Post
    The problem is that you do not want different groups
    Where have I said or indicated this?

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    2,451
    Blog Entries
    4

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Noeb View Post
    Aristarkos, you didn't answer the question.
    "What makes you think he's only talking to Israel here? 1 Corinthians 11:17-34"


    Where have I said or indicated this?
    So this is all you have to say to my previous post? Well Well. But I will answer your questions for you.

    What we have to figure out is, what is « the Lords Supper » mentioned in 1 Cor. 11:20? The expression itself occurs only once in 1 Cor. but there is no doubt it is also meant in Mat. 26:26 — 28 « And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new covenant which is shed for many for the remission of sins ». Also e.g. in Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 10:16 — 21.

    First who were present with the Lord? Only the apostles of circumcision, more over the Lord's supper is not a new institution specifically for « the » Church, what says the Lord in Luke 22:15? « And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer ». So the Lords supper is the real pascha or passover. What does the O.T. say about the passover? Exo. 12:48 « And when a stranger shall sojourn with you, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.

    So Paul talked to Jews in 1 Cor. 11:17 — 34, which makes sense because the Law require both in the Old and the New Covenant circumcision and that is required to eat of the passover. For this same reason Bible interpreters called the Lord's supper also the paschal supper or meal. You are aware the lord was the true paschal lamb?

    The fact you want to appropriate the New Covenant shows you want no groups otherwise why would you want to appropriate and identify with what is Israel's in the first place?

    Aristarkos

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 609
    Last Post: Jan 27th 2019, 08:01 PM
  2. Discussion has it started
    By kj2188 in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: Apr 6th 2014, 04:14 PM
  3. Replies: 28
    Last Post: Jan 8th 2013, 05:51 PM
  4. Replies: 116
    Last Post: Mar 20th 2012, 06:25 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •