glorydaz
Well-known member
I find it strange that you ignore what the verses are actually saying in context to pick out a word or two....that's how the serpent in the garden played his game. :think:
ECT "Things that are different" included Gentiles
- Thread starter heir
- Start date
I find it strange that you ignore what the verses are actually saying in context to pick out a word or two....that's how the serpent in the garden played his game. :think:
(Heb 9:15) For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.
It wasn't the future as of the writing of Hebrews.
C'mon Little Johnny W, no matter how hard you try, you have to realize that you cannot defend the false teachings of John Nelson Darby.
Set yourself free....give up Darby's false teachings.
I'm as pro-Paul as it gets.
The Apostle Paul was a minister of the New Covenant.
Nowhere in the NT does Paul ever say a word about God picking back up with Israel again, and the Law of Moses being put back in place again.
Paul says the exact opposite, yet you Darby Followers still claim God is going to one day in the future go back to the Law of Moses.
You Darby Followers are clueless as to what the Apostle Paul taught.
The House of Israel and the House of Judah.
It was implemented at the cross.
(Heb 7:22) Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantor of a better covenant.
What does "has become" mean?
You're begging the question.
The New Covenant was made with the House of Israel and the House of Judah. NOT "one people".
And, you are completely ignoring what's in the text.
"was established", and "has become" are not future verb tenses.
How many verses do you want me to show you glorydazedandconfused?
I gave you a verse that says Paul was a minister of the New Covenant.
I gave you another verse that says the New Covenant "was established".
I gave you another verse that says the New Covenant "has become".
I gave you another verse where Jesus says: "is the New Covenant".
Not to mention the following verse I haven't given yet:
(Heb 8:13) By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.
Care to tell us what "has made the first one obsolete" means?
heir
TOL Subscriber
Sadly by choice; you can make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery but you can't make them believe it.
You're wrong heir.
No matter how hard you try, your Acts 9/Bullingerism cannot stand the test of scripture.
You really need to put aside Darby and Bullinger, and study to shew thyself approved unto God (2 Tim 2:15 KJV)
(Eph 3:6) This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.
It's really that simple....unless of course you are trying to defend the false teachings of John Nelson Darby and E.W. Bullinger.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Being a surety or a guarantor means just what it says. I have no idea what you're trying to claim. The "better promises" were not yet implemented. In the same way the Holy Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance.
Ephesians 1:14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.
His work on the Cross guarantees many things....including our new spiritual resurrected bodies.
Heb. 7:22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Do you know how to carry on a normal conversation....or are you just that hung up on two men?
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Let us look at this passage which speaks of the New Covenant for the house of Israel and the house of Judah:
"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more" (Jer.31:31-34).
In the future those of the house of Israel and of the house of Judah will be given a New Covenant. And the "fathers" of those people will be the physical descendants of Israel, those who broke the LORD's covenant. That means that all those of both houses will also be the physical descendants of Israel as well.
And every single one of those physical descendants of Israel, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, will know the LORD have have their sins forgiven and be saved.
Anyone in his right mind knows that prophecy has not yet been fulfilled. But of course when it comes to Bible study your mind remains in a state of delusion!
Last edited:
(Heb 8:6) But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises.
"has received" and "is established" are not future tenses.
Yes they were. The Apostle Paul says so:
(2 Cor 1:20) For no matter how many promises God has made, they are “Yes” in Christ....
Why do you deny the words of the Apostle Paul, and claim the "better promises" were not yet implemented, when the Apostle Paul says they were?
Try and pay attention Jerry.
The verses in question use the phrases: "has made", "was established", and "has become".
None of these phrases are future tense.
Yet, that is what you Darby Followers have to make them in your desperate attempt to make the Bible fit John Nelson Darby's false teachings.
Please explain to us how the phrase "was established" is a future tense.
(Heb 8:6 KJV) But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
The Lord Jesus is the Mediator of a new "diatheke," and in this case the meaning is "testament":
"Therefore, He is the mediator of a new testament (diatheke), so that those who are called might receive the promise of the eternal inheritance, because a death has taken place for redemption from the transgressions committed under the first covenant" (Heb.9:15).
At Hebrews 9:15 the promise which is in regard to the "New Diatheke" is about an "inheritance," and under a Last Will and Testament it is the "heirs" who receive this inheritance.
That is in accordance with the Scriptures which declares that one becomes a heir by the Lord Jesus' Last Will and Testament, the gospel:
"That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel" (Eph.3:6).
Sir Robert Anderson writes that "Our spiritual and eternal blessings do not depend on a covenant made with us, but upon a testament under which we are beneficiaries" (Anderson, Types in Hebrews [Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1978], p.56).
NEWSFLASH Jerry.....all sins were forgiven at the cross. It's NOT a future event.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
I addressed your verse now it is your time to run and hide from what is revealed at Jeremiah 31:31-34 about the New Covenant promised to the house of israel and the house of Judah.
Wrong again Jerry.
"diatheke" is translated "covenant" 20 times in the NT, but only 13 times as "testament", according to Strongs.
Strongs translates "diatheke" as "covenant" in Hebrews 8:6.
G1242, you can see for yourself HERE
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
I got news for you tet! No one receives the forgiveness of sins until they believe (Acts 10:43). How could you possibly be not aware of that fact? Does your little book titled "Preterism For Dummies" not mention that fact?