ECT The Broken Record of MAD

[Lazy afternoon]

The Abrahamic covenant is neither the old covenant nor the new covenant, so don't try to play bait-and-switch with me. I wasn't born yesterday.

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 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.

Gal 3:14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
Gal 3:15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
Gal 3:17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ,

LA

 

[Danoh]

They are not even consistent with their own theology. They say "the Gentiles aren't under a covenant", but when you point to 2 Corinthians 3:6 I can't get an answer.

"who has made us sufficient to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."

Paul wasn't telling them of a covenant they couldn't have, but what they had already received. "Of the letter" obviously refers to the Mosaic covenant, and "of the Spirit" obviously refers to them being "born of the Spirit", and refers to that as a "covenant".

You can't pick and choose Paul's words to fit your own theology.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

You are not actually debating MADS on this issue.

Rather; a very, very small group of MADs within MAD.

And what you posted above my reply here is actually rather close to how both the three major schools within MAD and the smaller camps, but for one very, very small camp within MAD, understands this issue.

It is not being represented on this thread and or on TOL, in general.

Neither is the ugly conduct of some towards any who disagree with the view being represented.

Said conduct is not only rare when MADs deal with those oppposed to MAD, but not tolerated by most MADs as conduct becoming of "the Grace Believer."

Here it is - the view many, many highly respected MAD based Pastor-Teachers hold to.

http://graceambassadors.com/prophecy/new-covenant/written-in-their-hearts

 

[DAN P]

Hi and since DIATHEKE is a Transliterated Greek word it can be used by MANY English words and 2 Cor 3:6 CAN be written like this , Who also Rendered us fit ( as) Servants of a NEW ARRANGERMENT /DIATHEKE not of writing But of Spirit , for the WRITING , kills BUT the Spirit makes alive !!


#1 The Greek word DIATHEKE can be translated by the following words , Covenant , a Disposition , a Testament , a Compact , an Arrangement , a Contract !!

#2 , Why Covenant can NOT be ujsed in verse 6 is OBVIOUS !!

#3 The word Covenant is the LETTER of the Law !~!

#4 For those in RIO LINDA , the Mosaic Law !!

#5 This is the same Greek word used in 1 Cor 11:25 as we are NOT a Clovenant or a New Covenant assembly !!

#6 For the Letter of the Law Killeth !!

#7 The Spirit in the Dispensation of the Grace of God GIVETH LIFE !!

dan p

Hi SIMPLE an no reply ??

COWARD !!

dan p

 

[Danoh]

Lol, your oft reply to your own posts often reminds me of that old commercial where the guy who makes the doughnuts runs into himself going to work one morning; as he is coming home from work.

"I already made the doughnuts!" he says to himself :chuckle:

 

[DAN P]

Lol, your oft reply to your own posts often reminds me of that old commercial where the guy who makes the doughnuts runs into himself going to work one morning; as he is coming home from work.

"I already made the doughnuts!" he says to himself :chuckle:

Hi and where are DOUGHNUTS in the bible ??

If they want to PLAY with me your HOME WORK will be checked with me if I reply !!

dan p

 

[Interplanner]

I don't see any land promises nullified. Do you agree?

I guess you just don't know Hebrews; you don't get the appeal; you don't get the issues. Where in the world is the 'land' promise in 11-13--and that's because of what was taught in 8-10. Time to come up to the big time, where you can't live on 1 soundbyte from some cranny in Ezekiel. You've got to come to terms with what daring things the apostles said who founded our faith!

 

[Interplanner]

The Abrahamic covenant is neither the old covenant nor the new covenant, so don't try to play bait-and-switch with me. I wasn't born yesterday.

I don't think RD reads Gal 3 at all.

 

[Right Divider]

I understood you to say that we are not under any covenant. I'm sorry if I misunderstood.

You were talking about Paul's use of the words "new testament", so I assumed that we all understood what we were talking about.

I will make sure to always be fully explicit in the future.

So are you saying we are under the Abrahamic covenant, just not the same one the Jews were offered immediately after the resurrection and ascension?

I guess that it depends on which Abrahamic covenant you're talking about. I won't make any assumptions.

 

[Right Divider]

I don't think RD reads Gal 3 at all.

You don't know which is which, so your insults are void of any real meaning.

 

[SimpleMan77]

Hi SIMPLE an no reply ??

COWARD !!

dan p

Sorry for the delay in answering. Not a coward, just have a life. And I certainly am not insecure and threatened enough to feel the need to use insults.

The word DIATHEKE is used 29 times in the New Testament, and EVERY time it is referencing covenant. Every time. Paul uses it 9 times. Never does it come close to meaning "arrangement".

Paul, in 2 Corinthians 3:3 is referencing Jeremiah 31:31-33, talking about God writing His laws in their hearts. Read it again, and I think you'll see that.

One thing you fail to understand about prophesy - God isn't bound by time and space. Prophesy can be about multiple time periods, multiple situations, and come to pass in multiple ways. God will, in one breath, speak about something that is coming tomorrow and in the end of the world. An example of that is "out of Egypt I called my son". He reached backward and into the future, and both were the divine word of God. Jeremiah and other prophets do that quite regularly.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[jamie]

An example of that is "out of Egypt I called my son".

Exodus 4:22-23 Then you shall say to Pharaoh, "Thus says the LORD: 'Israel is My son, My firstborn. So I say to you, let My son go that he may serve Me. But if you refuse to let him go, indeed I will kill your son, your firstborn.'"​

Pharaoh was somewhat reluctant to let the Father's firstborn son to leave.

 

[Lighthouse]

They are not even consistent with their own theology. They say "the Gentiles aren't under a covenant", but when you point to 2 Corinthians 3:6 I can't get an answer.

"who has made us sufficient to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."

Paul wasn't telling them of a covenant they couldn't have, but what they had already received. "Of the letter" obviously refers to the Mosaic covenant, and "of the Spirit" obviously refers to them being "born of the Spirit", and refers to that as a "covenant".

You can't pick and choose Paul's words to fit your own theology.

διαθήκη

Thayer's Definition

1. a disposition, arrangement, of any sort, which one wishes to be valid, the last disposition which one makes of his earthly possessions after his death, a testament or will
2. a compact, a covenant, a testament
   1. God's covenant with Noah, etc

The word doesn't necessarily mean "covenant." In fact, "covenant" is a secondary definition. It is more likely that it means "arrangement."

Hi and when you can DEBUnk Eph 3:3 and Cal 1:25-26 and Rom 16:25 and 26 , for we believe all the bible !!

dan p

I'm MAD. Why do you want to know if I can debunk Paul's writings?

Ever read the NT? In MAD, they believe they are "in charge" of the OT. In NT theology, the NT is. Nothing in Hebrews goes that direction sir, so do we go with you or with Hebrews? Hebrews, I say...since it is 'to the Hebrews.'

:dizzy:

Jesus was not sent to nullify the Law and the Prophets, he was sent to fulfill (complete) them.

So far he has done a really good job, but there is still much more to come. Fasten your seatbelt.

So why are your fellow MAD opponents demanding that Jesus disregarded and/or negated the Law?

 

[SimpleMan77]

Exodus 4:22-23 Then you shall say to Pharaoh, "Thus says the LORD: 'Israel is My son, My firstborn. So I say to you, let My son go that he may serve Me. But if you refuse to let him go, indeed I will kill your son, your firstborn.'"​

Pharaoh was somewhat reluctant to let the Father's firstborn son to leave.

You quoted the wrong verse. I was referencing Hosea 11:1

When Israel was a child, then I loved him,
and called my son out of Egypt.

This refers back to Moses, but is simultaneously a prophesy about Jesus. To say all prophesy can only refer to one time/place is a misunderstanding.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[SimpleMan77]

διαθήκη

Thayer's Definition

1. a disposition, arrangement, of any sort, which one wishes to be valid, the last disposition which one makes of his earthly possessions after his death, a testament or will
2. a compact, a covenant, a testament
   1. God's covenant with Noah, etc

The word doesn't necessarily mean "covenant." In fact, "covenant" is a secondary definition. It is more likely that it means "arrangement."




I'm MAD. Why do you want to know if I can debunk Paul's writings?


:dizzy:


So why are your fellow MAD opponents demanding that Jesus disregarded and/or negated the Law?

Here is what Vine's says:

The NT uses of the word may be analyzed as follows: (a) a promise or undertaking, human or divine, Gal. 3:15; (b) a promise or undertaking on the part of God, Luke 1:72; Acts 3:25; Rom. 9:4; 11:27; Gal. 3:17Eph. 2:12; Heb. 7:22; 8:6, 8, 10; 10:16; (c) an agreement, a mutual undertaking, between God and Israel, see Deut. 29-30 (described as a ‘commandment,’ Heb. 7:18, cf. v. 22); Heb. 8:9; 9:20; (d) by metonymy, the token of the covenant, or promise, made to Abraham, Acts 7:8, (e) by metonymy, the record of the covenant, 2 Cor. 3:14; Heb. 9:4; cf. Rev. 11:19; (f) the basis, established by the death of Christ, on which the salvation of men is secured, Matt. 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25; 2 Cor. 3:6; Heb. 10:29; 12:24; 13:20.

Practically, all 29 uses in the NT are very obviously, from the context, talking about covenants.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Lighthouse]

Here is what Vine's says:

The NT uses of the word may be analyzed as follows: (a) a promise or undertaking, human or divine, Gal. 3:15; (b) a promise or undertaking on the part of God, Luke 1:72; Acts 3:25; Rom. 9:4; 11:27; Gal. 3:17Eph. 2:12; Heb. 7:22; 8:6, 8, 10; 10:16; (c) an agreement, a mutual undertaking, between God and Israel, see Deut. 29-30 (described as a ‘commandment,’ Heb. 7:18, cf. v. 22); Heb. 8:9; 9:20; (d) by metonymy, the token of the covenant, or promise, made to Abraham, Acts 7:8, (e) by metonymy, the record of the covenant, 2 Cor. 3:14; Heb. 9:4; cf. Rev. 11:19; (f) the basis, established by the death of Christ, on which the salvation of men is secured, Matt. 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25; 2 Cor. 3:6; Heb. 10:29; 12:24; 13:20.

Practically, all 29 uses in the NT are very obviously, from the context, talking about covenants.

Then you should be able to show that by providing the context.

 

[Interplanner]

You quoted the wrong verse. I was referencing Hosea 11:1

When Israel was a child, then I loved him,
and called my son out of Egypt.

This refers back to Moses, but is simultaneously a prophesy about Jesus. To say all prophesy can only refer to one time/place is a misunderstanding.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

re the 'one thing.'
Specifically, the people who read the OT as though the only thing it was about was Israel are missing what the NT means about its meaning "in Christ." And yet they are quite willing to say that some passages have more than one geo-political meaning, or even more confusing: to say that Mt24A has nothing to do with the massive conflict in that generation in 30 years.

 

[SimpleMan77]

Then you should be able to show that by providing the context.

There are 29 uses of that word. They all mean covenant, and virtually every translation I could find translated them that way.

I think the burden of proof is on you to prove every Greek translator wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

I guess you just don't know Hebrews; you don't get the appeal; you don't get the issues. Where in the world is the 'land' promise in 11-13--and that's because of what was taught in 8-10. Time to come up to the big time, where you can't live on 1 soundbyte from some cranny in Ezekiel. You've got to come to terms with what daring things the apostles said who founded our faith!

Where are the land promises nullified?
I will wait...forever.

 

[Tattooed Theist]

MAD, honestly, and respectfully, I would say just makes me think many don't understand exegetical reading when it relates to culture and audience...

Not an argument, just an observation from personal experience.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

MAD, honestly, and respectfully, I would say just makes me think many don't understand exegetical reading when it relates to culture and audience...

Not an argument, just an observation from personal experience.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Does Matthew 15:24(KJV) include you?