Bible Study Do You Know Where the New Covenant is, in the Bible ?

[John the Baptist]

The problem is that you must be a Jew OUTWARDLY before you can be a Jew. If you're not a Jew outwardly, then you're a Gentile. If you're a Gentile, there is nowhere in the bible that says you can become Jewish.

"But he [is] a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision [is that] of the heart, in the spirit, [and] not in the letter; whose praise [is] not of men, but of God", (Romans 2:29).

You can have salvation, but that is given to both Jew and Gentile. There is no place that says a Gentile becomes a Jew. Romans doesn't say that.

Then, how can you come under the 'NEW' Covenant, then ?

*******
Forum: Did you read his previous post, about laying awake nights? : He said that in his message about the problem! Now read the message here again and see for yourself how clear Romans 2:29 is to [most]. Christ's Inspired Word states that HE IS A JEW, which is one inwardly! Even 'i' understand that!

---John

PS: O' this is what I had made referance to!
ddubsolo85
123 Christian Friend


Joined: 30 Mar 2004
Posts: 152

Posted: Fri Oct 08, 2004 3:19 am Post subject: Losing sleep...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This subject just won't leave my head. I stay awake nights trying to figure this out. Can someone please help? Here's my response to Jay T's first post:

 

[ddubsolo85]

@ John the Baptist

Jay T wrote:
ddubsolo85 wrote:
The problem is that you must be a Jew OUTWARDLY before you can be a Jew. If you're not a Jew outwardly, then you're a Gentile. If you're a Gentile, there is nowhere in the bible that says you can become Jewish.
"But he [is] a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision [is that] of the heart, in the spirit, [and] not in the letter; whose praise [is] not of men, but of God", (Romans 2:29).
Quote:

You can have salvation, but that is given to both Jew and Gentile. There is no place that says a Gentile becomes a Jew. Romans doesn't say that.
Then, how can you come under the 'NEW' Covenant, then ?

My answer to Jay T's question would be, we're not under the New Covenant.

*******
J the B:

Forum: Did you read his previous post, about laying awake nights? He said that in his message about the problem! Now read the message here again and see for yourself how clear Romans 2:29 is to [most]. Christ's Inspired Word states that HE IS A JEW, which is one inwardly! Even 'i' understand that!

---John

No John,

You MISunderstand. Or, you do understand and attempt to deceive (which I don't think is the case, by the way). The truth of the matter is that the phrase, "He is a Jew, which is one inwardly", was made to Jews ONLY. The statement DID NOT pertain to Gentiles.

Let's look at this carefully. First, you and I both know that you can't take one scripture and consider it without considering those scriptures around it. We are much better served using sound hermeneutics, correct? With that in mind, let's take a closer look.

Paul, in v.14 speaks about Gentiles and the law;

Rom 2:14

For when the 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:

Then, in v.17, Paul speaks about Jews and the law;

Rom 2:17

Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God,

Next, Paul even discusses how the Jews blaspheme God amongst the Gentiles by attempting to keep THEM (GENTILES) under the law;

Rom 2:24

For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.

Clearly, Paul is speaking about JEWS, NOT GENTILES. He's speaking about circumcision of the flesh, and it has nothing to do with Gentiles, as Gentiles weren't given the law of circumcision.

So when Paul makes his statements in Rom 2:28-29, he's clearly not speaking about Gentiles, he's speaking about Jews. Therefore, when you quote this scripture and attribute it to Gentiles, you are MISquoting the Bible.

If you disagree with what I've said, please respond with why you disagree, and how you see these scriptures in light of what I've said about them.
---------------------------
J the B:

PS: O' this is what I had made referance to!

Posted: Fri Oct 08, 2004 3:19 am Post subject: Losing sleep...

"This subject just won't leave my head. I stay awake nights trying to figure this out. Can someone please help? Here's my response to Jay T's first post:"

That's right, this subject just eats at me. The reason is I don't think we can properly understand the Bible without first understanding God's promise to us. It's at the beginning of our understanding, and it it's incorrect, our entire understanding will be... skewed. For instance, if we began a math problem with 1+1=3, then all that followed would be problematic. I believe we have incorrectly diagnosed God's promise to us.

You think we're spiritual Jews when the Bible says no such thing. Others think we're under the New Covenant when... the Bible says no such thing. Thes things run all the way into eschatology. To me, these are serious problems which stem from our MISunderstanding of God's promise. So to me, it's critical to get clarity at the beginning. Until we do, we will continue to misunderstand and misconstrue.

So again, I ask for your help on this issue to bring clarity. Let's see if you can properly defend your position with scripture, and watch how iron can sharpen iron.

God Bless!

 

[John the Baptist]

Hi, you are the one looking for the answer, not me. You know what I am saying, right? Questions & Questions.

It seem's that we both see things much differently. One is right & one is wrong.

Regardless, I am not looking to change. I am settled in what I believe.

So for me to just keep going on & on (excuse me for being honest as I see it) with your Vain 'hobby horse' subject, would be to include me also as vain, on my part! Titus 3:9-11 And we have had several exchanges already!
---John

 

[Green^Horn]

So again, I ask for your help on this issue to bring clarity. Let's see if you can properly defend your position with scripture, and watch how iron can sharpen iron.

first of all, if you plan on sharpening any iron with iron, you must first have some iron, and trying to put us back under the old covenant in which we would still have need of a savior, and also in which case the gentiles would have no hope at all, is not any iron that i care for, neither do i have any desire to be sharpened with it, (note: take it from an old knife trader, iron is a very poor choice for a sharpening tool, a rock does a much better job of sharpening any kind of metal than iron does)

you say you ask for our help on this issue, and in an earlier post you said something like, that you can't sleep for trying to figure it out, but yet you reject every ounce of help that anyone brings to you, and just keep right on harping your same old tune, this leads me to believe that you don't really want any help at all, but instead, what you really want is either, for someone to agree with you, so that you can feel more justified in this absurdity, or that you are trying to convince others of this nonesense,

but none the less, i think i'll try my hand at it, in the hopes that, perhaps you might not have gotten to the point that you actualy believe this nonesense that you keep harping,

you keep on saying that salvation came under the old covenant, and you quote heb 9:15(which is a verse from the new covenant that you say does not exist yet, this alone nullifies your argument) in an effort to back it up, so lets examine that particular verse and see if it indeed means what you are trying to twist it into,

note: (i don't really like to interject my comments into the word like this but in this case i feel that it is necessary, so i will put my comments in blue),

Heb 9:15 "And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament," (why would there be a mediator of a covenant that does not exist? if so be that the new covenant has not come into existence?)

"that by means of death, for the redemption"(redemption, not salvation, there is a huge difference, in order to redeem somthing, a price has to be paid by the redeemer, salvation is what happens to those who are redeemed as a result of that redemption, Jesus paid the price, and we, as a result are redeemed by his blood, no such claim could be made under the old covenant, for if the blood of bulls and goats which were under the old covanant could accomplish this then christ died for nothing)

"of the transgressions that were under the first testament," (here you keep saying that it was redemption that was under the old covenant, or in some of your post you say salvation instead, but the verse clearly says that it was "the transgressions that were under the first testement", not redemption,)

"they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance."(i haven't noticed where that i have a difference with you on this last line,)

here is the new covenant:

Luk 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

now is this testament(covenant) in force? yes it is, and here is the requirment to put it into force:

Heb 9:16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
Heb 9:17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

now here is where it was put into force:

Joh 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

so now that the establishment of the new covenant has been shown, lets see what we can do about the gentiles:

Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

i believe that "whosoever" word pretty much covers the gentiles, but never the less here's more:

Joh 17:20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

that little verse right there brings the whole shebang to not only the gentiles but to all who hear the Word and believe it, and look what is included with this:

Joh 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

well i could go on and on, but i think that i've provided enough evidence to show that the new covenant is in force now, but in closing, here's just a little bit more from Isaiah that also covers the gentiles:

Isa 42:1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.
Isa 42:2 He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street.
Isa 42:3 A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring forth judgment unto truth.
Isa 42:4 He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law.
Isa 42:5 Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:
Isa 42:6 I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles;

 

[D46]

I got in on this discussion rather late but am curious just what others believe the "fullness of the Gentiles" means. Perhaps this has been hashed over before but for my sake, I'd like some scriptualevidense as to just what this "fullness is". I've alway held to the meaning as being that God will wait just so long (and who knows when that may be) for us Gentiles to come in before he closes the door, so to speak. Is that how most others intrepret this?

 

[ddubsolo85]

@ Green Horn

Green Horn:

first of all, if you plan on sharpening any iron with iron, you must
first have some iron, and trying to put us back under the old covenant
in which we would still have need of a savior, and also in which case
the gentiles would have no hope at all,...

The Savior died and resurrected under the Old Covenant, not the New
Covenant. My position is that salvation is under the Old Covenant. And
why would Gentiles be excluded? The Bible tells us plainly that
Gentiles were INCLUDED in the Old Covenant. Yet, there are no
scriptures which say Gentiles were saved under the New Covenant, or
that Gentiles are under the New Covenant, or that Gentiles will ever be
under the New Covenant.

...is not any iron that i care for, neither do i have any desire to be sharpened with it, (note: take it from an old knife trader, iron is a very poor choice for a sharpening tool, a rock does a much better job of sharpening any kind of metal than iron does)

Well then apparently you have no desire for what the Bible says. As
far as what iron can do, I'll let you take that up with God. I was
referring to Proverbs 27:17.

you say you ask for our help on this issue, and in an earlier post you said something like, that you can't sleep for trying to figure it out,
but yet you reject every ounce of help that anyone brings to you, and
just keep right on harping your same old tune, this leads me to believe
that you don't really want any help at all, but instead, what you really want is either, for someone to agree with you, so that you can feel more justified in this absurdity, or that you are trying to convince others of this nonesense,

I have a view of what scripture is saying. I ask you to refute my view with scripture, and present yours. I refute what you're saying with scripture, and show you where I think you're in error, and I ask you to do the same. If my view is "nonsense", it should be easily refuted with the word of God. If you can't do that, then maybe my view isn't the one that's nonsense.

but none the less, i think i'll try my hand at it, in the hopes that,
perhaps you might not have gotten to the point that you actualy believe
this nonesense that you keep harping,

That's exactly what I'm talking about. Expose my "nonsense" for what it
is, and STAY THE COURSE. If you do so, I will gladly agree with you and
change my position on the issue. So far, you (nor anyone else) has done
so. If you sincerely would like to help me, then do it. Refute my position. But writng down what you believe without defending it isn't refuting anything. If you can't defend what you say and just leave the conversation, it's your position that has been refuted.
--------------------------

you keep on saying that salvation came under the old covenant, and you quote heb 9:15(which is a verse from the new covenant that you say does not exist yet, this alone nullifies your argument) in an effort to back it up, so lets examine that particular verse and see if it indeed means what you are trying to twist it into,

I never said the New Covenant didn't exist, I said it's not in force today. There's a difference. And no, the New Covenant not being in force today does not nullify my argument. The Bible does not say it is in force. Established? Yes. In force? No. I do say salvation came under the Old Covenant, and I do quote Hbr 9:15 as ONE of the verses that say so.

note: (i don't really like to interject my comments into the word like this but in this case i feel that it is necessary, so i will put my comments in blue),

I prefer that you would interject or comment on scripture because it's the best way I can know how you see a verse.

Heb 9:15 "And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament," (why would there be a mediator of a covenant that does not exist? if so be that the new covenant has not come into existence?)

First, I never said it didn't exist, I said it's not in force. (If I said it didn't exist, I meant it as not being in force). With that understood, let's look at redemption.

"that by means of death, for the redemption..." (redemption, not salvation, there is a huge difference,

What is salvation? Deliverance from sins. What did the writer say? "Redemption of the transgressions." Redemption is deliverance, liberation procured by the payment of ransom. DELIVERANCE FROM SINS.

What did Jesus do? He redeemed us of the sins. And according to Hbr 9:15, He did so under the Old Covenant.

...in order to redeem somthing, a price has to be paid by the redeemer, salvation is what happens to those who are redeemed as a result of that redemption, Jesus paid the price, and we, as a result are redeemed by his blood, no such claim could be made under the old covenant, for if the blood of bulls and goats which were under the old covanant could accomplish this then christ died for nothing)

The blood of bulls and goats could not accomplish this, but Christ
could and did. Christ FULFILLED the law. He didn't end it, He didn't
change it, he fulfilled it. What was the problem with the Old Covenant?
The law was in the way. He took the law out of the way, which allowed
grace to prevail. Do you think that God just decided the Old Covenant didn't work? Did He decide it was no good, and then just cancelled it? NO! God does not fail. He fulfilled it!

"of the transgressions that were under the first testament," (here you keep saying that it was redemption that was under the old covenant, or in some of your post you say salvation instead, but the verse clearly
says that it was "the transgressions that were under the first testement", not redemption,)

You have incorrectly separated the verse. It clearly says, "redemption of the transgressions", meaning deliverance from sin, which is salvation. There is no comma, or any other reason to separate the verse where you did so. Any honest scholar or even casual observer can see that. So why did you separate it at that point? To attempt to make it fit what you're trying to say. It still doesn't work because the sentence structure wouldn't make sense.What the Bible says is "...for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament." There is no getting around that fact. This presents a real dilemma for your position. Christ brought
salvation under the first testament, which is the Old Covenant. You say
it says that the transgressions were under the first testament. Transgressions have come since Adam, and up through today. So why would he say that? The verse clearly says "for the redemption of the
transgressions." Redemption goes with transgressions. I'm sure the vast majority of scholars and non-scholars alike would agree with that. Just look at the commas. But in order to aid your argument, you put the breaks where they don't belong.

"they which are called might receive the promise of eternal
inheritance."(i haven't noticed where that i have a difference with you
on this last line,)

here is the new covenant:
Luk 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the
new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

But you're leaving out the next verse, given to us in Matthew;

Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Mat 26:29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit
of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's
kingdom.

Jesus tells us clearly that He won't drink it new until that day. Jesus
hasn't done that as of yet, wouldn't you agree? The New Covenant has
been established, the blood of Jesus did that. But the New Covenant has
not been put into force as of yet.

now is this testament(covenant) in force? yes it is, and here is the
requirment to put it into force:
Heb 9:16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the
death of the testator.
Heb 9:17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it
is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. now here is where it was put into force:
Joh 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is
finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

So this is the point you say the New Covenant began. But the book of
Hebrews was written AFTER this event, wouldn't you agree? So why would
the writher say that the Old Covenant is still in force AFTER this event in which you're saying that the New Covenant began?

Hbr 8:13 In that he saith, A new [covenant], he hath made the first
old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old [is] READY to vanish away.

Also, think about this. The blood of Jesus did what the blood of bulls and goats could not.

Hbr 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal
redemption [for us].

The blood of these animals couldn't remove the law so grace could come
in the OLD COVENANT. Christ was able to do what these animals couldn't
do- OBTAIN ETERNAL REDEMPTION. Jesus did what the bulls and goats could not do. He removed the law so that grace could abound. The law was a problem in the OLD COVENANT, and that's where Christ solved the
problem. Christ brought the redemption of sins under the OLD COVENANT. That's what the Bible says.If we would consider this logically, we would see that Jesus restored grace and fulfilled the law. The law blocked grace, and Jesus corrected that. Now add to that the fact that we're under the same covenant as Isaac;

Gal 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

What covenant was Isaac under? Surely not the New Covenant. Isaac was under the Old Covenant, and we are under the same promise as Isaac... the Old Covenant. Not according to me, but according to the Bible.
--------------------------

so now that the establishment of the new covenant has been shown,...

Established? As in the blood of Christ ratifies it? Yes. Is it in force? No. That definitely hasn't been established.

... lets see what we can do about the gentiles:

I agree with you 100% that Gentiles are INCLUDED in salvation. There
is absolutely no doubt about it. But my disagreement is that salvation
came under the Old Covenant, and that is the promise we're under.

So where do Gentiles fit in according to the Bible? Paul tells us;

Gal 3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.

Gal 3:7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are
the children of Abraham.

Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the

heathen (GENTILES!!!) through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, [saying], In thee shall all nations be blessed.

Gal 3:9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
We Gentiles are blessed with Abraham, written right in the Old Covenant
promise to Abraham. Gentiles are the many nations blessed under the OLD COVENANT. It says so right there in the Bible. So do you have ANY scriptures that say the New Covenant is in force, or that it is even given to Gentiles? I don't see any. I see where Gentiles are to be ministers (to serve) of the New Covenant, but under it? No. It's always promised to the house of Israel. Period.

God Bless!

 

[Green^Horn]

Well then apparently you have no desire for what the Bible says. As
far as what iron can do, I'll let you take that up with God. I was
referring to Proverbs 27:17.

and the rock i was refering to is Jesus, sorry about the missunderstanding, but i thaught you would catch that,

I never said the New Covenant didn't exist, I said it's not in force today. There's a difference.

and i posted you the scriptures that show that it is in force, did Christ not die on the cross? his death put into force the covenant he made with his deciples, apparently we have a huge difference of opinion of what a covenant is, tell me, do have a will written up in which will be read after your death? and if so, does it not go into force after you die? or does it just stay hidden away in a closet somewhere?

the new testement from the book of mathew to the end of revelation is Jesus' last will and testament, the new covenant,

the greek word used in the new testament for covenant and testament are one and the same:

here's strongs for both the words "covenant" and "testament"

G1242
διαθήκη
diathēkē
dee-ath-ay'-kay
From G1303; properly a disposition, that is, (specifically) a contract (especially a devisory will): - covenant, testament.

And no, the New Covenant not being in force today does not nullify my argument.

i never said anything about the new covenant not being in force nullifying your arguement, what i was refering to, is that your use of a new covenant passage in an effort to prove that the new covenant is not in force yet nullifies your arguement,

look, you are trying to prove that the new covenant is not in force, yet for your evidence you used heb 9:15, which is a verse from the new covenant, which you yourself had just said has no force, therefore you have defeated your own argument with your evidence, since you said it has no force, see, you just cut your own throat, so to speak.

you see, it is your own claim that your evidence has no force that nullifies your arguement, not anything that i've said, all i was trying to do was point it out to you, because it is obvious that you were not aware of what you were doing,

The Bible does not say it is in force. Established? Yes. In force? No.

it seems we have a very different idea of what established means as well,

from websters dictionary

Establish
ESTAB'LISH, v.t. [L. stabilio; Heb. to set, fix, establish.]

1. To set and fix firmly or unalterably; to settle permanently.
I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant. Gen 17.
2. To found permanently; to erect and fix or settle; as, to establish a colony or an empire.
3. To enact or decree by authority and for permanence; to ordain; to appoint; as, to establish laws, regulations, institutions, rules, ordinances, &c.
4. To settle or fix; to confirm; as, to establish a person, society or corporation, in possessions or privileges.
5. To make firm; to confirm; to ratify what has been previously set or made.
Do we then make void the law through faith?
God forbid; yea, we establish the law. Rom 3.
6. To settle or fix what is wavering, doubtful or weak; to confirm.
So were the churches established in the faith. Acts 16.
To the end he may establish your hearts unblamable in
holiness. l Thess.3.
7. To confirm; to fulfill; to make good.
Establish thy word to thy servant. Psa 119
8. To set up in the place of another and confirm.
Who go about to establish their own righteousness. Rom 10.

to establish something and to put it into force is the same thing,

I do say salvation came under the Old Covenant,

none of us are saved yet, redeemed? yes, but saved? no, that part has not come yet,

Mat 24:13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

we have not reached the end yet,

and I do quote Hbr 9:15 as ONE of the verses that say so.

but it doesn't say so, but it does say that "the transgression that were under the first testament" have been redeemed, but it is obvious that Jesus' death paid the price, and put his new covenant into force at the same time, so one might say that the redemption came at the fulfillment of the old covenant by the establishment of the new.

I prefer that you would interject or comment on scripture because it's the best way I can know how you see a verse.

i think it's the best way as well, but there are those who will blabber "your adding to the word" you know what i mean i'm sure,

First, I never said it didn't exist, I said it's not in force. (If I said it didn't exist, I meant it as not being in force).

ok, but i don't see that there's a difference.

With that understood, let's look at redemption.

What is salvation? Deliverance from sins. What did the writer say? "Redemption of the transgressions." Redemption is deliverance, liberation procured by the payment of ransom. DELIVERANCE FROM SINS.

just because the price has been paid, doesn't mean that we have recieved salvation yet, what we have recieved is the promiss of salvation, for example, lets say that a fellow who rebuilds wrecked cars goes to a wrecked car sale and buys himself a bunch of wrecked cars, these cars often stay sitting in the junkyard untill the owner decides he is ready to start referbishing them, see, we have have been baught and paid for, but we are still sitting in the salvage yard(this world) waiting for Jesus to return and give us our new bodies, at which point we will have been salvaged, or recieve our salvation, nothing that is salvaged is restored untill it gets its body work and new paint job, and we are still waiting on ours, but we do have a promiss tho, and our redeemer will keep his word, here is his word concerning the matter:

Joh 6:39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
Joh 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

that "last day" is what i'm looking for, that is when we will recieve our new bodies,

What did Jesus do? He redeemed us of the sins. And according to Hbr 9:15, He did so under the Old Covenant.

i'm not disagreeing just for the sake of disagreeing, and don't mean to sound harsh, but heb 9:15 says no such thing, you understanding of that verse is very flawed, it does not say that redemption was under the old covenant, what it does say is "for the redemption(redemption of what?) of the transgressions(what were these transgressions under?) that were(past tence) under the first testament("transgressions" that were under the first testamant, not redemption, it does not say what testament redemption was under)

let me paraphrase if you don;t mind and i believe i can clear this up, what it is saying (peraphrased) is that by means of death, Jesus had paid for the sins that were commited under the old covenant,

now i'm not a grammar expert or anything like that but the problem is that you are putting the words "first testament" to apply to the word "redemption" but it don't, it applies to the word "transgression" , the use of the pronoun "that" after the noun "transgression" ties that noun to the following explaination, for it to be be like you are saying it is, it would have to read "the redemption that was under the first testament, redeemed the transgressions that were under the first testament" however it does not say it that way, you are trying to let the pronoun "that" ignore the noun it succeeds and is tied too, and you are tieing it to a noun 3 or 4 words before it, that just don't work.

if that don't help you with this, then i'm at my whits end on this one, and it will take someone with more knowlege about the propper use of grammar than i have,

The blood of bulls and goats could not accomplish this, but Christ
could and did. Christ FULFILLED the law. He didn't end it, He didn't
change it, he fulfilled it. What was the problem with the Old Covenant?
The law was in the way. He took the law out of the way, which allowed
grace to prevail. Do you think that God just decided the Old Covenant didn't work? Did He decide it was no good, and then just cancelled it? NO! God does not fail. He fulfilled it!

i have no quarrel with you at all on this one, and i agree.

"of the transgressions that were under the first testament," (here you keep saying that it was redemption that was under the old covenant, or in some of your post you say salvation instead, but the verse clearly
says that it was "the transgressions that were under the first testement", not redemption,)

You have incorrectly separated the verse. It clearly says, "redemption of the transgressions", meaning deliverance from sin, which is salvation. There is no comma, or any other reason to separate the verse where you did so. Any honest scholar or even casual observer can see that. So why did you separate it at that point? To attempt to make it fit what you're trying to say.

i don't enjoy being falsely accused of something i did not do, i never seperated it there to force my view, but rather, i did it to try and show you your mistake in tieing the noun "redemption" to another noun 2 nouns away, and ingoring the pronoun "that" that tied the noun "transgressions" to the explaination following, which is "were under the first testament", i don't really want to go into all that again, but it was your error that gave me a very good reason, to seperate it where i did, see that is another reason why i don't like to interject my comments into verses like that, i get falsly accused of something i didn't do, it was your error dewd, not mine.

here is the new covenant:
Luk 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the
new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

But you're leaving out the next verse, given to us in Matthew;

Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Mat 26:29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit
of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's
kingdom.

Jesus tells us clearly that He won't drink it new until that day. Jesus
hasn't done that as of yet, wouldn't you agree? The New Covenant has
been established, the blood of Jesus did that. But the New Covenant has
not been put into force as of yet.

i;ve allready covered this, to "put into force" and to "establish" are the same thing,

and the spiritual fulfillment of the drinking of the new wine happened on the day of penticost, when they were filled with the holy ghost, but if you must have it a natarual fulfillment, then here in luke we find him breaking bread with them again, and this was after his resurrection:

Luk 24:30 And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and broke, and gave to them.

and it was common practice for them to drink wine when they broke bread.

now is this testament(covenant) in force? yes it is, and here is the
requirment to put it into force:
Heb 9:16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the
death of the testator.
Heb 9:17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it
is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. now here is where it was put into force:
Joh 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is
finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

So this is the point you say the New Covenant began. But the book of
Hebrews was written AFTER this event, wouldn't you agree? So why would
the writher say that the Old Covenant is still in force AFTER this event in which you're saying that the New Covenant began?

Hbr 8:13 In that he saith, A new [covenant], he hath made the first
old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old [is] READY to vanish away.

tell me where that says that the old covenant is still in force??? this is getting old real fast, i've spent 6+ hours on this, only to get this far, and find you saying yet another falsehood, nowhere does the writer of hebrews say that the old covenant is still in force,

Also, think about this. The blood of Jesus did what the blood of bulls and goats could not.

Hbr 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal
redemption [for us].

The blood of these animals couldn't remove the law so grace could come
in the OLD COVENANT. Christ was able to do what these animals couldn't
do- OBTAIN ETERNAL REDEMPTION. Jesus did what the bulls and goats could not do. He removed the law so that grace could abound. The law was a problem in the OLD COVENANT, and that's where Christ solved the
problem. Christ brought the redemption of sins under the OLD COVENANT. That's what the Bible says.If we would consider this logically, we would see that Jesus restored grace and fulfilled the law. The law blocked grace, and Jesus corrected that. Now add to that the fact that we're under the same covenant as Isaac;

Gal 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

What covenant was Isaac under? Surely not the New Covenant. Isaac was under the Old Covenant, and we are under the same promise as Isaac... the Old Covenant. Not according to me, but according to the Bible.
--------------------------

so thats what this is all about? the covenant God made with abraham and issac and jacob, (which by the way is not the old covenant) has nothing to do with the covenant made with the children of isreal at mount sinai(which is the old covenant), the old covenant that the writter of hebrews is refering to is the one with the animal sacrifices tied to it, the mosicial law, that is what is commonly referred to as the old covenant, in thy seed and in thy seeds seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, was a promisse of the blood line to Jesus, Jesus was the seed in which all the nathins of the earth was blessed,

with the exception of the ten commandments, the old covenant referred to in the book of hebrews is the laws contained in these books: Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were never under these laws, the covenant made with them regarding the promissed seed(Jesus) will stand forever i suppose, even unto the fulfillment of the new covenant, and yes we are still under it, and as far as i know, we allways will be under it, since Jesus is the fulfillment of it, how could we ever not be under it, he will reign forever.

as a matter of fact, i supose that it could be said that the covenant made with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, regarding the seed(Jesus) is the new covenant, or at least part of it, since Jesus himself is both the promise and the fulfillment of it, also it can be said that Jesus death put that promise into force as well, but it is certainly not the old covenant referred to in hebrews which involved the animal sacrifices.

-------------------------------------------------------------

i had to edit this to correct an error that i made regarding the seed covenant, where i said that one might say that it is the new covenant, this needs some further explaination, what i mean by that , is that Jesus' fulfillment of that promise is part of what brought about the new covenant, see a whole bunch of things were fulfilled when Jesus came and died on the cross, several covenants were fulfilled and many promisses were made good, and they all came together in Jesus.

 

[Green^Horn]

something i just thaught of, there are other covenants that Jesus put into force as well, and they are all a part of each other, one of them was a covenant that God made with David, but i'm not going to go into all that, because you and i have a very different idea of what a covenant is, and of what put into force means and a whole bunch of other things as well,

 

[Merry Menagerie]

Into which family are we adopted into?

Who are the children of God?

Who are we joint heirs with?

Who is Christ?

 

[Jay T]

Into which family are we adopted into?

Spiritual Israel

Who are the children of God?

Those who keep all the commandments of God, and have the faith of Jesus, Revelation 14:12.

Who are we joint heirs with?

Only those who obey Jesus Christ....."Why can me Lord, Lord, and do not the things I say ?"

 

[ddubsolo85]

@ Green Horn

ddubsolo85 wrote:
Well then apparently you have no desire for what the Bible says. As
far as what iron can do, I'll let you take that up with God. I was
referring to Proverbs 27:17.

and the rock i was refering to is Jesus, sorry about the missunderstanding, but i thaught you would catch that,

Ahhh! I missed that. : Good one though, and you're right. The Rock sharpens better than iron. Touche! :wink:

ddubsolo85 wrote:
I never said the New Covenant didn't exist, I said it's not in force today. There's a difference.

and i posted you the scriptures that show that it is in force, did Christ not die on the cross? his death put into force the covenant he made with his deciples,...

Yes, Christ died on the cross. But nowhere in the Bible does it say that Christ' death begins the New Covenant. I can't just take your word for it, right? Can you show me a scripture that says the New Covenant is in force?

...apparently we have a huge difference of opinion of what a covenant is, tell me, do have a will written up in which will be read after your death?

Yes.

...and if so, does it not go into force after you die? or does it just stay hidden away in a closet somewhere?

It goes into force when you die unless designated otherwise.

the new testement from the book of mathew to the end of revelation is Jesus' last will and testament, the new covenant,

So all of God's promises go into effect at the death of Jesus? I don't think so. Established? Sure. Obtained? No. The New Testament designates otherwise. Consider this promise in Hebrews;

Hbr 10:23 Let us HOLD FAST the profession of [our] faith without wavering; (for he [is] faithful that promised;)

Hbr 10:24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:

Hbr 10:25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some [is]; but exhorting [one another]: and so much the more, AS YOU SEE THE DAY APPROACHING.
In other words, WAIT for the promise to come. Take note that this is AFTER the time you said the New Covenant began. Or even this verse;

Hbr 10:36 For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise.

Apparently the entire will and testament didn't go into force at the death or resurrection of Jesus.
--------------------

the greek word used in the new testament for covenant and testament are one and the same:

I'm aware of that. I agree with that.

ddubsolo85 wrote:
And no, the New Covenant not being in force today does not nullify my argument.

i never said anything about the new covenant not being in force nullifying your arguement, what i was refering to, is that your use of a new covenant passage in an effort to prove that the new covenant is not in force yet nullifies your arguement,

It's a passage that you believe is a new covenant passage. That doesn't mean it says what you think it says. As you already know, everyone isn't correct when it comes to passages.

look, you are trying to prove that the new covenant is not in force, yet for your evidence you used heb 9:15, which is a verse from the new covenant, which you yourself had just said has no force, therefore you have defeated your own argument with your evidence, since you said it has no force, see, you just cut your own throat, so to speak.

Just because the book is called the new covenant doesn't mean the new covenant is in force. Who named the book the new covenant? Hmmm... And the passage has force because it means something. But the New Covenant is not in force because the Bible never says that it is.

you see, it is your own claim that your evidence has no force that nullifies your arguement, not anything that i've said, all i was trying to do was point it out to you, because it is obvious that you were not aware of what you were doing,

No, I know what I'm doing. What I'm saying can be proven with other passages, including some in the old covenant. Yet, no one has shown ANY passages saying that we're currently under the new covenant now. You said Jesus' death confirms it, but the Bible doesn't say that. On an issue of this importance, not one passage says so. Don't you find that... peculiar? Yet, I've shown you several that say we're under the Old Covenant.

ddubsolo85 wrote:
The Bible does not say it is in force. Established? Yes. In force? No.

it seems we have a very different idea of what established means as well,

from websters dictionary

Establish
ESTAB'LISH, v.t. [L. stabilio; Heb. to set, fix, establish.]

1. To set and fix firmly or unalterably; to settle permanently.
I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant. Gen 17.
2. To found permanently; to erect and fix or settle; as, to establish a colony or an empire.
3. To enact or decree by authority and for permanence; to ordain; to appoint; as, to establish laws, regulations, institutions, rules, ordinances, &c.
4. To settle or fix; to confirm; as, to establish a person, society or corporation, in possessions or privileges.
5. To make firm; to confirm; to ratify what has been previously set or made.
Do we then make void the law through faith?
God forbid; yea, we establish the law. Rom 3.
6. To settle or fix what is wavering, doubtful or weak; to confirm.
So were the churches established in the faith. Acts 16.
To the end he may establish your hearts unblamable in
holiness. l Thess.3.
7. To confirm; to fulfill; to make good.
Establish thy word to thy servant. Psa 119
8. To set up in the place of another and confirm.
Who go about to establish their own righteousness. Rom 10.

to establish something and to put it into force is the same thing,

Let's look at the definition from the Greek since it's the definition we're discussing;

Establish- nomotheteo {nom-oth-et-eh'-o}

TDNT Reference Root Word
TDNT - 4:1090,646 from 3550
Part of Speech
v
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) to enact laws

a) laws are enacted or prescribed for one, to be legislated for, furnished with laws

2) to sanction by law, enact

To enact laws. So now, let's look at the definition of enact...

Main Entry: en·act
Pronunciation: i-'nakt
Function: transitive verb
1 : to establish by legal and authoritative act; specifically : to make (as a bill) into law
2 : ACT OUT <enact a role>
- en·ac·tor /-'nak-t&r/ noun
So to establish is to establish by a legal and authoritative act (to make a bill into a law). And that's what Christ did with the new covenant. He paved the way, He made it possible for it to be put in force. His blood enacted the covenant. However, He did not "obtain" it;

obtain- tugchano {toong-khan'-o}

TDNT Reference Root Word
TDNT - 8:238,1191 probably for an obsolete tucho (for which the middle voice of another alternate teucho [to make ready or bring to pass] is used in certain tenses, akin to the base of 5088 through the idea of effecting
Part of Speech
v
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) to hit the mark

a) of one discharging a javelin or arrow

2) to reach, attain, obtain, get, become master of

3) to happen, chance, fall out

a) to specify, to take a case, as for example
To reach, bring to pass, make happen, to discharge. I'm sure you see a difference between established and obtained. Obviously they're not the same thing. You seem to be confusing established with obtained. A law can be established (enacted), but it's not put into force until someone breaks it and is prosecuted. Redemption was obtained, and the new covenant was established. The New Covenant has not been obtained by anyone. The Bible makes the distinction between the two.

Also, let me go a step further. The promise of the new covenant was never given to anyone other than Israel. It was never promised to Gentiles.
-----------------------------

ddubsolo85 wrote:
I do say salvation came under the Old Covenant,

none of us are saved yet, redeemed? yes, but saved? no, that part has not come yet,

Mat 24:13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

we have not reached the end yet,

Fair enough. Redeemed unto salvation. How's that?

ddubsolo85 wrote:
and I do quote Hbr 9:15 as ONE of the verses that say so.

but it doesn't say so, but it does say that "the transgression that were under the first testament" have been redeemed, but it is obvious that Jesus' death paid the price, and put his new covenant into force at the same time, so one might say that the redemption came at the fulfillment of the old covenant by the establishment of the new.

--If that were true, then why, AFTER Jesus' deaht and resurrection, did the writer of Hebrews state that the old covenant was "READY" to vanish away, meaning that it was still in place? Why wouldn't the writer say that it was gone?

Hbr 8:13 In that he saith, A new [covenant], he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old [is] READY to vanish away.

READY to vanish, as in not gone, but still here. If I told you that I have an old and rotten car that continuously breaks down, and I'm ready to be rid of it, would that mean I still had it? The Bible is in disagreement with you. On an issue this critical, God just decided to let us assume it was so? And no, it's not obvious that the new covenant went into force.

However, I do see your point that the verse could be saying the transgressions are of the first testament, but there are some problems with that also. But we can surely use other verses in the Bibe that corroborate our points of view, and that will tell us who is correct. Do you have any other verses that support what you're saying?

ddubsolo85 wrote:

I prefer that you would interject or comment on scripture because it's the best way I can know how you see a verse.

i think it's the best way as well, but there are those who will blabber "your adding to the word" you know what i mean i'm sure,

Yes, unfortunately I know what you mean. But you're not adding to it, you're expressing your thoughts about it. There's a difference (to me at least).

ddubsolo85 wrote:

First, I never said it didn't exist, I said it's not in force. (If I said it didn't exist, I meant it as not being in force).

ok, but i don't see that there's a difference.

The difference is that it has been established, but not obtained.

ddubsolo85 wrote:
With that understood, let's look at redemption.

What is salvation? Deliverance from sins. What did the writer say? "Redemption of the transgressions." Redemption is deliverance, liberation procured by the payment of ransom. DELIVERANCE FROM SINS.

just because the price has been paid, doesn't mean that we have recieved salvation yet, what we have recieved is the promiss of salvation, for example, lets say that a fellow who rebuilds wrecked cars goes to a wrecked car sale and buys himself a bunch of wrecked cars, these cars often stay sitting in the junkyard untill the owner decides he is ready to start referbishing them, see, we have have been baught and paid for, but we are still sitting in the salvage yard(this world) waiting for Jesus to return and give us our new bodies, at which point we will have been salvaged, or recieve our salvation, nothing that is salvaged is restored untill it gets its body work and new paint job, and we are still waiting on ours,

So salvation has been established, but not obtained. I'm glad to see you understand the difference between the two.

but we do have a promiss tho, and our redeemer will keep his word, here is his word concerning the matter:

Joh 6:39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
Joh 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

that "last day" is what i'm looking for, that is when we will recieve our new bodies,

Agreed. But we can be sure of our salvation if we accept Christ. Do you agree? And it is the "redemption of the transgressions" through Christ that guarantees salvation. What Hbr 9:15 says is "redemption of the transgressions".

ddubsolo85 wrote:
What did Jesus do? He redeemed us of the sins. And according to Hbr 9:15, He did so under the Old Covenant.

i'm not disagreeing just for the sake of disagreeing, and don't mean to sound harsh, but heb 9:15 says no such thing, you understanding of that verse is very flawed, it does not say that redemption was under the old covenant, what it does say is "for the redemption(redemption of what?) of the transgressions(what were these transgressions under?) that were(past tence) under the first testament("transgressions" that were under the first testamant, not redemption, it does not say what testament redemption was under)

let me paraphrase if you don;t mind and i believe i can clear this up, what it is saying (peraphrased) is that by means of death, Jesus had paid for the sins that were commited under the old covenant,

now i'm not a grammar expert or anything like that but the problem is that you are putting the words "first testament" to apply to the word "redemption" but it don't, it applies to the word "transgression" , the use of the pronoun "that" after the noun "transgression" ties that noun to the following explaination, for it to be be like you are saying it is, it would have to read "the redemption that was under the first testament, redeemed the transgressions that were under the first testament" however it does not say it that way, you are trying to let the pronoun "that" ignore the noun it succeeds and is tied too, and you are tieing it to a noun 3 or 4 words before it, that just don't work.

if that don't help you with this, then i'm at my whits end on this one, and it will take someone with more knowlege about the propper use of grammar than i have,

I understand what you're saying, and the verse could be construed as you say. It could be saying that Christ redeemed what happened under the first testament, which are the transgressions (grammatically speaking). But what would that mean? What about the sins that followed the first testament? If we take it the way you're saying it, then He died for the sins preceding His death and resurrection. What about the sins of you and I? What about our transgressions? Also, are there any verses to corroborate this view?

ddubsolo85 wrote:
The blood of bulls and goats could not accomplish this, but Christ
could and did. Christ FULFILLED the law. He didn't end it, He didn't
change it, he fulfilled it. What was the problem with the Old Covenant?
The law was in the way. He took the law out of the way, which allowed
grace to prevail. Do you think that God just decided the Old Covenant didn't work? Did He decide it was no good, and then just cancelled it? NO! God does not fail. He fulfilled it!

i have no quarrel with you at all on this one, and i agree.

Are you sure? I'm saying that Jesus repaired the Old Covenant. He accomplished the fulfillment under the old covenant. This was all done under the old covenant, and there is nothing that says anything switched to the new covenant. Christ fulfilled the old, and there has been no switch to the new. Do you still agree? (I don't want to be able bo come back and say, "you agreed!", because I don't think you fully understand what I'm saying in that statement).

ddubsolo85 wrote:
Quote:
"of the transgressions that were under the first testament," (here you keep saying that it was redemption that was under the old covenant, or in some of your post you say salvation instead, but the verse clearly
says that it was "the transgressions that were under the first testement", not redemption,)

You have incorrectly separated the verse. It clearly says, "redemption of the transgressions", meaning deliverance from sin, which is salvation. There is no comma, or any other reason to separate the verse where you did so. Any honest scholar or even casual observer can see that. So why did you separate it at that point? To attempt to make it fit what you're trying to say.

i don't enjoy being falsely accused of something i did not do, i never seperated it there to force my view, but rather, i did it to try and show you your mistake in tieing the noun "redemption" to another noun 2 nouns away, and ingoring the pronoun "that" that tied the noun "transgressions" to the explaination following, which is "were under the first testament", i don't really want to go into all that again, but it was your error that gave me a very good reason, to seperate it where i did, see that is another reason why i don't like to interject my comments into verses like that, i get falsly accused of something i didn't do, it was your error dewd, not mine.

My error? Then you're doing exactly what you accuse me of. But that's ok because you're expressing to me where you believe I'm in error. I don't take that personally.

The fact is that the commas connect redemption to transgressions. Now, I do agree that the phrase "that were under the first testament" could be connected to the word transgressions alone, grammatically speaking. It does fit grammatically that way also, I agree. But you will have to explain why it says Jesus redeems the sins under the first testament, yet you and I are under the new testament. How does that work? You'll have to show where the redemption of sins happened under the New Covenant, not just that it happened.

Also, understand that I'm saying that both your way and my way work grammatically, and I hope you can see that it's the commas which connect redemption and transgression (which I don't think compromises your position). I didn't connect the nouns, the writer apparently connected the nouns. That's obvious.

ddubsolo85 wrote:
Quote:
here is the new covenant:
Luk 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the
new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

But you're leaving out the next verse, given to us in Matthew;

Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Mat 26:29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit
of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's
kingdom.

Jesus tells us clearly that He won't drink it new until that day. Jesus
hasn't done that as of yet, wouldn't you agree? The New Covenant has
been established, the blood of Jesus did that. But the New Covenant has
not been put into force as of yet.

i;ve allready covered this, to "put into force" and to "establish" are the same thing,

And as you've seen, I've uncovered that (with your help, I might add). Established isn't obtained.

[quote:2734e]...and the spiritual fulfillment of the drinking of the new wine happened on the day of penticost, when they were filled with the holy ghost, but if you must have it a natarual fulfillment, then here in luke we find him breaking bread with them again, and this was after his resurrection:

Luk 24:30 And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and broke, and gave to them.

and it was common practice for them to drink wine when they broke bread. [/quote:2734e]
So... they were in the Father's kingdom? Are you sure? Also, we are left to ASSUME they drank the wine of the new covenant without one word being said about it. That's a bit of a reach.
------------------------

ddubsolo85 wrote:
Quote:
now is this testament(covenant) in force? yes it is, and here is the
requirment to put it into force:
Heb 9:16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the
death of the testator.
Heb 9:17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it
is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. now here is where it was put into force:
Joh 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is
finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

So this is the point you say the New Covenant began. But the book of
Hebrews was written AFTER this event, wouldn't you agree? So why would
the writher say that the Old Covenant is still in force AFTER this event in which you're saying that the New Covenant began?

Hbr 8:13 In that he saith, A new [covenant], he hath made the first
old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old [is] READY to vanish away.

tell me where that says that the old covenant is still in force??? this is getting old real fast, i've spent 6+ hours on this, only to get this far, and find you saying yet another falsehood, nowhere does the writer of hebrews say that the old covenant is still in force,

If you're "ready" to go to bed, have you gone? If you're "ready" to die, have you died? If you're "ready" to fly, have you flown? NO!!! You are still awake, still alive, and still on the ground. What will come hasn't come as of yet, it is still in the future. The old covenant, according to the writer of Hebrews, is "ready to vanish", meaning it's still there. If it had vanished, the writer would have said, VANISHED, don't you think? The writer said "READY TO VANISH", meaning it was still there.

ddubsolo85 wrote:
Also, think about this. The blood of Jesus did what the blood of bulls and goats could not.

Hbr 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal
redemption [for us].

The blood of these animals couldn't remove the law so grace could come
in the OLD COVENANT. Christ was able to do what these animals couldn't
do- OBTAIN ETERNAL REDEMPTION. Jesus did what the bulls and goats could not do. He removed the law so that grace could abound. The law was a problem in the OLD COVENANT, and that's where Christ solved the
problem. Christ brought the redemption of sins under the OLD COVENANT. That's what the Bible says.If we would consider this logically, we would see that Jesus restored grace and fulfilled the law. The law blocked grace, and Jesus corrected that. Now add to that the fact that we're under the same covenant as Isaac;

Gal 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

What covenant was Isaac under? Surely not the New Covenant. Isaac was under the Old Covenant, and we are under the same promise as Isaac... the Old Covenant. Not according to me, but according to the Bible.
--------------------------

so thats what this is all about? the covenant God made with abraham and issac and jacob, (which by the way is not the old covenant) has nothing to do with the covenant made with the children of isreal at mount sinai(which is the old covenant), the old covenant that the writter of hebrews is refering to is the one with the animal sacrifices tied to it, the mosicial law, that is what is commonly referred to as the old covenant, in thy seed and in thy seeds seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, was a promisse of the blood line to Jesus, Jesus was the seed in which all the nathins of the earth was blessed,

with the exception of the ten commandments, the old covenant referred to in the book of hebrews is the laws contained in these books: Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were never under these laws, the covenant made with them regarding the promissed seed(Jesus) will stand forever i suppose, even unto the fulfillment of the new covenant, and yes we are still under it, and as far as i know, we allways will be under it, since Jesus is the fulfillment of it, how could we ever not be under it, he will reign forever.

You're mistaken. The law was ADDED to the Old Covenant 430 years after the fact.


Gal 3:17 And this I say, [that] the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

You're confusing the Old Covenant with the law. The Old Covenant was given to Abraham, and within that Old Covenant was the promise to redeem Gentiles as well as Jews. Paul makes that very clear.

Gal 3:7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.

Gal 3:8 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.

The Old Covenant was given to Abraham, and the law was added to it 430 years later. Jesus fulfilled the Old Covenant by removing the law, and allowing grace to abound. The Bible NEVER says we're under the New Covenant.

as a matter of fact, i supose that it could be said that the covenant made with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, regarding the seed(Jesus) is the new covenant, since Jesus himself is both the promise and the fulfillment of it, also it can be said that Jesus death put that promise into force as well, but it is certainly not the old covenant referred to in hebrews which involved the animal sacrifices.

Here's another way to prove that you're incorrect in thinking that the Old Covenant is the law. Read again what the promise of the New Covenant is in Jeremiah 31:31 and Hebrews 8. You'll see that there are no changes to the covenant itself, that the only changes are to the PEOPLE. The covenant, as you say, is the same, and Jesus is the fulfillment.

We can even go a step further and say if we're currently under the New Covenant and that is where the redemption of the transgressions took place, then it would have been impossible for those under the Old Covenant to have attained it. They were all doomed.

God Bless!

 

[ddubsolo85]

@ Green Horn

something i just thaught of, there are other covenants that Jesus put into force as well, and they are all a part of each other, one of them was a covenant that God made with David, but i'm not going to go into all that, because you and i have a very different idea of what a covenant is, and of what put into force means and a whole bunch of other things as well,

No, I don't think we have different concepts of what a covenant is. I agree with your definitions of it. And as far as when they're 'put in force', I think you explained it quite well when discussing salvation. There's a difference between established and obtained. So I don't see any difference there either.

God Bless!

 

[ddubsolo85]

@ Jay T

Merry Menagerie wrote:
Into which family are we adopted into?

Jay T:
Spiritual Israel:

"Spiritual Israel"? We are not adopted into Israel, we are adopted into the seed of Abraham. The seed of Abraham IS NOT Israel. Those born of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are Israel. The Bible doesn't say one thing about Gentiles becoming Israel in any way, shape, or form.

So why is this misleading statement made over and over?

God Bless!

 

[Merry Menagerie]

Then who are the seed of Abraham?

 

[ddubsolo85]

@ Merry

The seed of Abraham are all in Christ, both Jew and Gentile.

God Bless!

 

[John the Baptist]

I am about through on this site. Censorship & Warning's are not for me. But, this post is from another site that I will post here, that seems to fall into the same subject of who is the heavenly Zion?

xxxxxxxx wrote:
Well, I don't think it is up to you or anyone to decide who is and isn't a Christian. Not everyone repents every day: just accept that!


***
John here:
There is more to that remark than Christians understand. Heb. 11 finds one dead [in] the faith. This includes the large number of the O.T. ones also who understood what that meant. Psalms 77:13

They had a daily sacrifice to offer & a yearly one. It was only the Day of Atonement one that required mandatory obedience. (compare the Sin against the Holy Spirit in Matt. 12:31-32 & Psalms 19:13) Yet, remember too, that most of the today ones have been professed Christian's doing the same known sins over & over again for years!! Not just for one year. That is why there is the Rev. 17:1-5 ones as past/tense, THE ABOMINATION OF THE EARTH. (Universe)

This was the cut off period for both the Jew or the convert 'stranger'.
Stranger? (Spiritual Jew) See Gen. 12:5 K.J. for that also or Ex. 12:38's verse. (Rom. 2:28-29)

The 'big' problem with Christians is that they (most) do not even study to see what this Gen. Abram one did in his [Obedient] life's [works]. Case in point before I run on to my work ! In Gen. 26:5 we see what this SAVING FAITH covered:

"BECAUSE Abraham [OBEYED MY *VOICE] (not even in print yet, huh?)
and [KEPT MY CHARGE], [**MY** COMMANDMENTS], [**MY** STATUES], and [**MY** LAWS.]" Check Isa. 8:20 out.

But not the ones on the other side of the cross, huh? FOOLISHNESS that will cost a broad pathway of ignorant ones their salvation!!! Matt. 7:26 with the 13-14 verse, : Christ says!

 

[Merry Menagerie]

@ Merry

The seed of Abraham are all in Christ, both Jew and Gentile.

God Bless!

There's a scripture that says "YOu are a peculiar people, a royal priesthood a holy nation a people belonging to God" Can I ask please who these people are? What is this holy 'NATION' that God refers to here?

 

[Heidi]

Then who are the seed of Abraham?

Hi Merry,

Romans 9:6-8, "For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, 'It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.' In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are Abraham's offspring."

Pauls goes on to say in Romans 9:11, "Yet before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad-in order that God's purpose in election might stand; not by works but by him who calls-she was told.

In other words, all those chosen before the creation of the world are Israel. It is through Isaac that Christ came and redeemed the world.

 

[tzalam2]

This subject is 7 pages long, so far, and I've not got the patience to read all thru.

My questions:

what are the commandments the born again Christians are supposed to keep, as mentioned in the first page.
What are those commandments?

I think I know, but, I'd like to hear others comment.

And, Jesus said , "For I say unto you, That except your righteousnes shall exceed the righteousnes of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven."

Sounds like a very tough requirement. The scribes and Pharisees were fanatical in their following of the law of Moses.

 

[ddubsolo85]

@ Merry

ddubsolo85 wrote:
The seed of Abraham are all in Christ, both Jew and Gentile.

There's a scripture that says "YOu are a peculiar people, a royal priesthood a holy nation a people belonging to God" Can I ask please who these people are? What is this holy 'NATION' that God refers to here?

--Yes, that's 1Pe 2:9.

1Pe 2:9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.

Peter is speaking to the Jews. Here are some of the verses that let us know that;

1Pe 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the "strangers" scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

--The strangers are the sojourners from a foreign land, which are the Jews, who are now in the land of the Gentiles.


1Pe 1:10 "Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently,...

1Pe 1:12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things,..."

--The prophets prophesied to the Jews.

And finally, after 2:9 in v. 12,

1Pe 2:12 Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles:

Peter tells us clearly he's speaking to the Jews because he tells them how to speak with the Gentiles. It's crystal clear.

God Bless!