Bible Study God's Covenant Promises

[for_his_glory]

God's Covenant Promises

With Noah to save him and his family, Genesis 6:18

With Noah and his descendants to never again destroy the world by flood. (Genesis 9:9-17)

With Abram to give him and his descendants the land we call Israel today and to destroy the inhabitants of that land because of their great sins (Genesis 15:18-21)

God's follow-up with Abram, changing his name to Abraham, and designating him the father of many nations and millions of descendants, and adding the covenant of circumcision, and promising him Isaac as a son and the inheritor of it (Genesis chapter 17). God made His with Abraham unconditional. (Genesis 22:12-18)

God's conditional one with the children of Israel, requiring their keeping God's law and circumcision, in return for physical blessings (Exodus 19-4). Further terms (conditions) of this covenant were expounded later (Leviticus chapters 25-27; Deuteronomy chapters 29- 31).

With the children of Israel concerning the Sabbath. (Exodus 31:14-18)

God's concerning the Ten Commandments and Holy Days designated by God. (Exodus 34:10 - 35)

God's concerning the bread in the Tabernacle, and later the Temple, to be eaten only by the priests, descendants of Aaron. (Leviticus 24:8,9)

God promised a new covenant in the Bible. (Jeremiah 31:31-34)

God, in the Bible, spoke of His unconditional covenant with King David of Israel and of His continuing, unconditional covenant with Jacob's descendants. (Jeremiah 33:19-36)

God spoke of "divorcing" Israel and Judah, thus ending the earlier covenant, and of establishing a new one with them. (Ezekiel 16:59-63)

The most important one - the new covenant - established by Jesus upon His death. (Matthew 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 2 Corinthians 3:6; Hebrews chapters 7 - 10). Paul described the only new ritual of it. (1Corinthians 11:23-30)

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

God's Covenant Promises

With Noah to save him and his family, Genesis 6:18

With Noah and his descendants to never again destroy the world by flood. (Genesis 9:9-17)

With Abram to give him and his descendants the land we call Israel today and to destroy the inhabitants of that land because of their great sins (Genesis 15:18-21)

God's follow-up with Abram, changing his name to Abraham, and designating him the father of many nations and millions of descendants, and adding the covenant of circumcision, and promising him Isaac as a son and the inheritor of it (Genesis chapter 17). God made His with Abraham unconditional. (Genesis 22:12-18)

God's conditional one with the children of Israel, requiring their keeping God's law and circumcision, in return for physical blessings (Exodus 19-4). Further terms (conditions) of this covenant were expounded later (Leviticus chapters 25-27; Deuteronomy chapters 29- 31).

With the children of Israel concerning the Sabbath. (Exodus 31:14-18)

God's concerning the Ten Commandments and Holy Days designated by God. (Exodus 34:10 - 35)

God's concerning the bread in the Tabernacle, and later the Temple, to be eaten only by the priests, descendants of Aaron. (Leviticus 24:8,9)

God promised a new covenant in the Bible. (Jeremiah 31:31-34)

God, in the Bible, spoke of His unconditional covenant with King David of Israel and of His continuing, unconditional covenant with Jacob's descendants. (Jeremiah 33:19-36)

God spoke of "divorcing" Israel and Judah, thus ending the earlier covenant, and of establishing a new one with them. (Ezekiel 16:59-63)

The most important one - the new covenant - established by Jesus upon His death. (Matthew 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 2 Corinthians 3:6; Hebrews chapters 7 - 10). Paul described the only new ritual of it. (1Corinthians 11:23-30)

Ritual?
How about baptism?

 

[for_his_glory]

Ritual?
How about baptism?

A ritual in the sense of it being not repetitious, but a heart felt memorial of what Christ did for us on the cross as we partake of the bread that represents His body that was given for us and the wine that represents His blood He shed for us, 1Corinthians 11:23-30.

There are actually two types of Baptism as one is John the baptist who baptized with water for the remission of sin so one would be prepared for the coming of the Christ, Matthew 3:1-17 and then there is the Baptism of the Holy Spirit that Peter talks about in Acts 2:37-41 that will come after repentance.

 

[Sinthesis]

Three, including Jesus' baptism of fire.

Mat 3:11 - I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
Mat 3:12 - Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.​

 

[for_his_glory]

Three, including Jesus' baptism of fire.

Mat 3:11 - I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
Mat 3:12 - Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.​

Being baptized with the Holy Spirit and fire is actually two events taking place at the same time. It's the same as John 3:5 and Acts 2:38 that we have to repent first as we are then purged from all our sin as it is burned up with an unquenchable fire, like that of the lake of fire where all sin will be cast into, then we are baptized in the Holy Spirit, that after the purging, will indwell us.

 

[Tony Hyman]

This brings in an interesting concept regarding the difference between a "covenant " and a "promise" between God and man.It seems there is a difference according to Paul "What I mean is this :The law , introduced 430 years later (cf after Abram Gen 15:13-14 my insert.)does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise.18.For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise, but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise."(Gal 3:17-18 N.I.V.)The difference then is found in vv 19 and 20 "...The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator 20 A mediator , however , does not represent just one party.; but God is one."
Now this would mean to my understanding that God never made a "covenant" with Abraham ie where Abraham's seed were obliged to keep strictly to the Law and if the law was broken or not honored then the covenant or contract between God and the Israelite s would not meet the requirements under Moses in spite of their intentions "We will do everything the Lord has said."(Ex;19:8)The "promise" with Abraham is a "one way" agreement between God and man through Christ where the believer is not bound to offer anything in return ie a father "promises" his son or daughter a new pc but does not expect some achievement in return. This is a one party agreement in the meaning of" but God is one."That's why we as Christians need to be very grateful that the grace of God is a one way gift and we are liberated from the burdens of the strict laws under the O.T.We truly live under the "promise" as given to Abraham through Christ and very fortunate that'for sure.We should just live up to that gift from God as deserving "children" should.Not so easy in this world though.But we must thunder on regardless!

 

[for_his_glory]

That was interesting Tony as the law has nothing to do with the promises of God. There are no conjunctions (and, if, but) in God's covenant promises. God was very direct in Genesis 12:1 and Psalms 91. Those that do are those who will be blessed.

 

[Jim Parker]

A ritual in the sense of it being not repetitious, but a heart felt memorial of what Christ did for us on the cross as we partake of the bread that represents His body that was given for us and the wine that represents His blood He shed for us,

<<<rant begins>>>
It is what Jesus Himself taught in John chapter 6.
It's not some warm, fuzzy, "heart felt memorial."
Jesus stated, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." (John 6:53-54 RSV) but so many Protestants don't want to believe that Jesus meant what He said. (Unlike His disciples who heard Him say it and decided they wouldn't follow Him any more just as reported in that Bible thingy at John 6:66 <<interesting chapt & vs: "666" hmmmm>>)
No one in the Church, anywhere, from the 1st century up until the 16th century taught that the bread and wine was anything other than the real body and blood of the LORD. It wasn't until schismatics (Protestant "reformers") started forming groups in conflict with the Church which Jesus established that the notion of the bread and wine being "symbolic" was invented.
The Eucharist as symbolic of the body and blood of the LORD is an invention of people who didn't want to believe what the apostles taught.
<<<rant ends>>>


iakov the fool


By reading the words posted above, you have made a free will choice to expose yourself to the rantings of iakov the fool. The poster assumes no responsibility for any temporary, permanent or otherwise annoying manifestations of cognitive dysfunction that may result from said reading. No warrantee is expressed or implied. Individual mileage may vary. No, I don't want to hear it. Enjoy the rest of your life.

 

[for_his_glory]

<<<rant begins>>>
It is what Jesus Himself taught in John chapter 6.
It's not some warm, fuzzy, "heart felt memorial."
Jesus stated, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." (John 6:53-54 RSV) but so many Protestants don't want to believe that Jesus meant what He said. (Unlike His disciples who heard Him say it and decided they wouldn't follow Him any more just as reported in that Bible thingy at John 6:66 <<interesting chapt & vs: "666" hmmmm>>)
No one in the Church, anywhere, from the 1st century up until the 16th century taught that the bread and wine was anything other than the real body and blood of the LORD. It wasn't until schismatics (Protestant "reformers") started forming groups in conflict with the Church which Jesus established that the notion of the bread and wine being "symbolic" was invented.
The Eucharist as symbolic of the body and blood of the LORD is an invention of people who didn't want to believe what the apostles taught.
<<<rant ends>>>


iakov the fool


By reading the words posted above, you have made a free will choice to expose yourself to the rantings of iakov the fool. The poster assumes no responsibility for any temporary, permanent or otherwise annoying manifestations of cognitive dysfunction that may result from said reading. No warrantee is expressed or implied. Individual mileage may vary. No, I don't want to hear it. Enjoy the rest of your life.

Warm and fuzzy has nothing to do with what I said here about a heart felt memorial that honors what Christ went through for us as we partake of His life, death and resurrection. That sir is not a warm fuzzy feeling, but a feeling of sincere gratitude and remembrance for when we partake of the bread, that represents Christ body broken for His love for us. When we partake of the wine, that represents Christ blood that was shed for His love for us. No where did Christ rip off a piece of His flesh and fill a cup with blood that we should literally eat and drink His flesh and blood.

I'm not going to get into a Catholic vs. Protestant thingy of something that sounds so childish and lead this discussion off topic. You can start a new thread on that if you want and we can discuss it there.

 

[Jim Parker]

That sir is not a warm fuzzy feeling, but a feeling of sincere gratitude and remembrance for when we partake of the bread, that represents Christ body broken for His love for us. When we partake of the wine, that represents Christ blood that was shed for His love for us.

Baloney. There is no Biblical basis for that mangling of scripture.

No where did Christ rip off a piece of His flesh and fill a cup with blood that we should literally eat and drink His flesh and blood.

Of course not. and no one suggested anything that absurd.
What Jesus specifically said, with reference to the bread is; "This IS my body." (Mat 26:26; Mar 14:22; Luk 22:19) and with reference to the wine; "This IS my blood." (Mat 26:28; Mar 14:24, Luk 22:20) NOWHERE IN SCRIPTURE are the words "This REPRESENTS my body or blood" or "This is SYMBOLIC OF my body or blood." to be found. Those are the 16th century innovations of schismatic religious sects.

It is necessary to take great liberties with the word of God to replace the Biblical word "IS" with the non-Biblical words "represents" or "symbolizes." There is absolutely no warrant anywhere in scripture to do so.

From the time of the apostles it was taught by the entire Church that the the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ. How it becomes so remains a mystery which is not revealed in either scripture or tradition. But, the fact remains, that the apostolic teaching is that the bread and wine became the body and blood of the LORD. That understanding was universal in the Church until the Protestant "reformers" began to replace it with their own ideas.

That's historical fact whether it pleases anyone or not.

I'm not going to get into a Catholic vs. Protestant thingy

Good!
It's NOT a Catholic vs. Protestant thingy.
It's a scripture vs. schismatic sect invention thingy.

 

[for_his_glory]

Baloney. There is no Biblical basis for that mangling of scripture.

Of course not. and no one suggested anything that absurd.
What Jesus specifically said, with reference to the bread is; "This IS my body." (Mat 26:26; Mar 14:22; Luk 22:19) and with reference to the wine; "This IS my blood." (Mat 26:28; Mar 14:24, Luk 22:20) NOWHERE IN SCRIPTURE are the words "This REPRESENTS my body or blood" or "This is SYMBOLIC OF my body or blood." to be found. That is a 16th century innovation of schismatic sects.

It is necessary to take great liberties with the word of God to replace the Biblical word "IS" with the non-Biblical word "represents." There is absolutely no warrant anywhere in scripture to do so.

From the time of the apostles it was taught by the entire Church that the the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ. How it becomes so remains a mystery which is not revealed in either scripture or tradition. But, the fact remains, that the apostolic teaching is that the bread and wine became the body and blood of the LORD. That understanding was universal in the Church until the Protestant "reformers" began to replace it with their own ideas.

That's historical fact whether it pleases anyone or not.

Good! It's NOT a Catholic vs. Protestant thingy. It's a scripture vs. schismatic invention thingy.

please, thank you.

 

[Jim Parker]

please, thank you.

Don't care to continue the redirection you initiated?
Little wonder.

 

[for_his_glory]

Don't care to continue the redirection you initiated?
Little wonder.

The only thing I initiated was an answer in post # 3 to what Rollo asked in post #2. as I answered his question with a comparative that evidently struck a nerve with you and your religion, but yet has nothing to do with this thread. You may want to start your own thread on that and not derail this one.

 

[Jim Parker]

The only thing I initiated was an answer in post # 3

And I responded to that post. It's a public forum. We can do that.

your religion

My religion is Christianity as taught by scripture and the apostles.

has nothing to do with this thread

Then you shouldn't have posted opinion that has nothing to do with this thread.

You may want to start your own thread on that and not derail this one.

You created the rail.