ECT "Things that are different" included Gentiles

[tetelestai]

No, he was not.

Yes he was:

(2 Cor 3:6) He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant--not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

Paul preached many things, old and new (not covenant).

Read Gal 4. Paul preaches about the difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant.

(Gal 4:24) ...The women represent two covenants. ...

 

[Danoh]

What is your term for RD's refusal to read any other passage about the new covenant except 'Israel and Judah' line in Heb 8 from Jer 31?

Gross Nick knows very little he might really be able to comment on as to any of these issues.

Very little.

 

[Right Divider]

Are you sure you really want to go there Wrong Divider?

Read Ezekiel 37 about the one king over both houses, then get back to me.

I've read it before. Jesus is the King of the Jews, where Jews refers to Israel (as it sometimes is used).

This is THE definition of the covenant that you are clueless about.

Jer 31:31-33 (AKJV/PCE)​

(31:31) ¶ 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: (31:32) 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: (31:33) But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
​

You disagree with God and that's your problem.

 

[Danoh]

I've read it before. Jesus is the King of the Jews, where Jews refers to Israel (as it sometimes is used).

This is THE definition of the covenant that you are clueless about.

Jer 31:31-33 (AKJV/PCE)​

(31:31) ¶ 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: (31:32) 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: (31:33) But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
​

You disagree with God and that's your problem.

Yep :thumb:

 

[Interplanner]

I've read it before. Jesus is the King of the Jews, where Jews refers to Israel (as it sometimes is used).

This is THE definition of the covenant that you are clueless about.

Jer 31:31-33 (AKJV/PCE)​

(31:31) ¶ 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: (31:32) 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: (31:33) But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
​

You disagree with God and that's your problem.

...which hebrews 9-10 says was put in effect by Christ on the cross. You disagree with Heb 9-10 and that's not our problem. That's you and your issue to figure out.

 

[Right Divider]

What does 'no he is not' mean. 2 Cor 3:6. He was a competent one. Is this why you have not referred to the other texts on the new covenant all these 6 months?

I love how you flutter like a butterfly from "translation" to "translation" until you get the one that suits your "needs".

 

[Danoh]

Danoh,

Heb 8:6 by itself affirms the New Covenant was put in place, and was in place at the time Hebrews was written.

Moreover, there are many more verses that confirm the New Covenant was put in place throughout the NT.

Be honest with yourself....you know that you have to do everything you can to not have the New Covenant in place, because your dispensationalism falls apart.

Most of the biggest errors of MAD are because of the denial of the New Covenant by MADists.

You missed my point. Go back a few posts to when I first said what I said about Romans 1:11.

 

[Danoh]

I love how you flutter like a butterfly from "translation" to "translation" until you get the one that suits your "needs".

So does Jerry, but no one says a peep.

Fact is they are both off in said practice.

 

[tetelestai]

I've read it before. Jesus is the King of the Jews, where Jews refers to Israel (as it sometimes is used).

This is THE definition of the covenant that you are clueless about.

Jer 31:31-33 (AKJV/PCE)​

(31:31) ¶ 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: (31:32) 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: (31:33) But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
​

You disagree with God and that's your problem.

The whole purpose of the book of Hebrews is to show how Christ Jesus fulfilled the Law and Prophets.

The reason the writer of Hebrews quoted Jer 31, was because Jer 31 was fulfilled by Christ Jesus.

Hebrews was not a book of prophecies, it was a book about prophecies being fulfilled by Christ Jesus.

In addition to quoting Jer 31, the writer of Hebrews tells us the New Covenant was established:

(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.

No matter how hard you try Wrong Divider, the Bible proves your denial of the New Covenant wrong.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

tet,

I asked you:

Are you willing to argue that there was a time in the past when all of the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob belonging to both the house of Israel and the house of Judah were saved?

To this you answered:

Yes, the cross.

(1 John 2:2) He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

The Lord Jesus is the atoning sacrifice and He tasted death for men. But that does not mean that in some point in time in the past all of the physical descendants of Israel had their sins forgiven. You still have not come to the realization that in order for anyone to have their sins forgiven they must first believe (Acts 10:43).

Now that your nonsense has been cleared up, are you willing to argue that sometimes in the past all of the physical descendants of the house of Israel and the house of Judah knew the LORD and had their sins forgiven?

Or are you just going to close your eyes to the truth about what is revealed about the New Covenant at Jeremiah 31:31-34?

 

[Right Divider]

Yes he was:

(2 Cor 3:6) He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant--not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

2Cor 3:6 (AKJV/PCE)​

(3:6) Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
​

Read Gal 4. Paul preaches about the difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant.

(Gal 4:24) ...The women represent two covenants. ...

The "two covenants" referred to there are NOT the old covenant of the law and the new covenant of the law. You are so dumb.

 

[Interplanner]

Jerry wrote:
But that does not mean that in some point in time in the past all of the physical descendants of Israel had their sins forgiven.


I think you meant 'did not have...' but please clarify?

How would anyone know Jerry? Paul never says all of them were the remnant, and there always was the remnant. That's why Hebrews distinguishes between those who had faith in ch 11 and the rest who shrink back.

Anyway as soon as you say all the physical descendants 'at one time' you have an oxymoron that cannot exist. All the physical descendants never existed at one time.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

So does Jerry, but no one says a peep.

Here is your chance to say a peep!

What's own your mind?

 

[Right Divider]

...which hebrews 9-10 says was put in effect by Christ on the cross. You disagree with Heb 9-10 and that's not our problem. That's you and your issue to figure out.

EVEN if it was, YOU are not the house of Israel.

Why is everyone STILL "teaching every man his neighbor and every man his brother"? The Bible says that in the new covenant that will NOT be the case.

Jer 31:33-34 (AKJV/PCE)​

(31:33) But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. (31:34) 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.

​

This is EXACTLY why folks like you pervert the plain meaning of "Israel" into some "spiritualized concoction".

 

[Right Divider]

So does Jerry, but no one says a peep.

Fact is they are both off in said practice.

:dizzy:

 

[Interplanner]

I love how you flutter like a butterfly from "translation" to "translation" until you get the one that suits your "needs".

There is nothing the matter with the translation. I hate how you entitle yourself to dictate what is or is not Scripture. You're a real jerk about this RD. In 6 months you have not said anything about the 5 other passages on the new covenant because they blast your pet 'loved' theory.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

How would anyone know Jerry? Paul never says all of them were the remnant, and there always was the remnant. That's why Hebrews distinguishes between those who had faith in ch 11 and the rest who shrink back.

No matter how many verses from the OT you pervert the fact remains that sometimes in the future all who will be left out of the nation of Israel will be believers and they will all have their sins forgiven:

"And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith the LORD, two parts therein shall be cut off and die; but the third shall be left therein. And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, The LORD is my God" (Zech.13:8-9).​

Now it is time to get out your editing pencil and try your best to pervert those words in an attempt to convince others that event happened sometimes in the past!

Who can take you people seriously?

 

[Right Divider]

The whole purpose of the book of Hebrews is to show how Christ Jesus fulfilled the Law and Prophets.

The reason the writer of Hebrews quoted Jer 31, was because Jer 31 was fulfilled by Christ Jesus.

Hebrews was not a book of prophecies, it was a book about prophecies being fulfilled by Christ Jesus.

In addition to quoting Jer 31, the writer of Hebrews tells us the New Covenant was established:

(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.

No matter how hard you try Wrong Divider, the Bible proves your denial of the New Covenant wrong.

Hebrews is a book to the Hebrews. Yes, they had many prophecies about THEMSELVES and their Christ.

Yes, Christ fulfilled MANY of those prophecies. There are still MANY more to come.

The new covenant was established when God promised it, it is NOT currently active or there would be "no man teaching his neighbor and no man his brother" per Jeremiah 31:34.

 

[Right Divider]

There is nothing the matter with the translation. I hate how you entitle yourself to dictate what is or is not Scripture. You're a real jerk about this RD. In 6 months you have not said anything about the 5 other passages on the new covenant because they blast your pet 'loved' theory.

Since YOU cannot understand even the FIRST mention of the new covenant, there is NO sense in going any further. Until YOU can understand Jeremiah.... there is nothing to discuss.

 

[tetelestai]

The Lord Jesus is the atoning sacrifice and He tasted death for men. But that does not mean that in some point in time in the past all of the physical descendants of Israel had their sins forgiven.

Yes it does. Not only were all the sins forgiven for the descendants from both houses, all the sins were forgiven for the whole world (1 John 2:2)

You still have not come to the realization that in order for anyone to have their sins forgiven they must first believe (Acts 10:43).

Ok, but the blood sacrifice was for ALL sins.

Now that your nonsense has been cleared up, are you willing to argue that sometimes in the past all of the physical descendants of the house of Israel and the house of Judah knew the LORD and had their sins forgiven?

As I have shown you, ALL sins were paid for at the cross.

As for "knowing the Lord", here is what the Apostle Paul said:

(Col 1:23 KJV) If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;

So, according to Paul, the gospel was preached to every creature under heaven, and according to John, the sins of the whole world were paid for at the cross.

Welcome to the New Covenant.

Or are you just going to close your eyes to the truth about what is revealed about the New Covenant at Jeremiah 31:31-34?

Nope, I'm going to continue to refute the false teachings of Darby with scripture.