Hi and define COVENANT / DIATHEKE meaning and where is nthe everlasting gospel taught ??
Give verses , please !!
dan p
ECT What is better about D'ism?
- Thread starter Interplanner
- Start date
Hi and define COVENANT / DIATHEKE meaning and where is nthe everlasting gospel taught ??
Give verses , please !!
dan p
Interplanner
Well-known member
The covenant promises certain blessings to a group or to a representative for a group. The new covenant was with Christ and so those in Him share in all he acquired; we will reign and inherit with Him.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Yes.
This is why the federal headship of the two Adams is vital to understanding the covenants and grace of God.
The first Adam represented his unfortunate offspring, who would inherit the human nature he corrupted, and would be enslaved to sin, death, and the devil. (aka Old Covenant)
And the last Adam, Jesus Christ, would represent His spiritual offspring, who are promised redemption from slavery to sin, death, and the devil; to inherit a share in the heavenly Kingdom promised to Him. (aka New Covenant)
Interplanner
Well-known member
I don't know if the old covenant goes as far back as Adam, considering verses found in Gal 3.
I don't know what STP is getting at. Knowing the eternal covenant that was to come in Christ IS to know Christ the Word. But there is nothing Judaistic about it; I don't know why there would be since the need for Christ goes back before Abraham, not the other way around.
My hunch is that the promises he is reading and the way he is reading them is NT-free; it would never last through romans or Galatians. He thinks it is about the eternal land of Israel, no matter what. Just so he knows, I think it is his view that is not very universe oriented, and I don't know why or where the praises of Christ which are listed in eph 1 or Col 1 mention anything about Judea. In heaven, do they sing 'Worthy is the Lion of Judah who reconquered the true borders of Solomon's Israel?' Is that in the Rev?
I don't know what STP is getting at. Knowing the eternal covenant that was to come in Christ IS to know Christ the Word. But there is nothing Judaistic about it; I don't know why there would be since the need for Christ goes back before Abraham, not the other way around.
My hunch is that the promises he is reading and the way he is reading them is NT-free; it would never last through romans or Galatians. He thinks it is about the eternal land of Israel, no matter what. Just so he knows, I think it is his view that is not very universe oriented, and I don't know why or where the praises of Christ which are listed in eph 1 or Col 1 mention anything about Judea. In heaven, do they sing 'Worthy is the Lion of Judah who reconquered the true borders of Solomon's Israel?' Is that in the Rev?
Nang
TOL Subscriber
God made promises to Adam and also gave Adam commands to obey. All the ingredients of a contract, indeed.
Which ("Old") covenant Adam failed to keep with God; and that very breach explains why Adam is blamed for sin and death entering the world. Romans 5:12
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Made up. Why do you do that?
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
This much is true.
I refuse to believe anything but the text. You are drowning in a sea of commentaries and statements of faith.
Interplanner
Well-known member
If not addressed already, the other bizarre thing about Tam's view here is that the writer to Hebrews is not saying the new covenant is future. He's saying 'the good things are already here' (the major originals support that, not 'are coming.') I doubt if Tam is familiar enough with the passage to know that this line is in 8-10 and is already speaking on this very question. The Jeremiah passage is never used in Hebrews to be future or about the land as such.
Judaism is what sought to establish its own righteousness, and quite a bit of D'ism echoes it.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Made up.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Vicious lie.
musterion
Well-known member
Joking around is one thing but I lose respect for TOL every time anybody is allowed to deliberately and repeatedly lie about anybody else, even after correction has been given.
Right Divider
Body part
There is NO "rebuke" there, only in your tiny little commentary corrupted mind.
Nice fancy weasel words there "Grammar scholar". The restoration of the kingdom as a GIVEN, it did NOT need to be repeated or dwelt upon.
Ah, the "too literal" again. I'll take the literal BIBLE over you and your fanciful commentaries anyday.
Your "kingdom" is a pitiful version compared to the one that the BIBLE describes. In the kingdom there will be NO SIN allowed. It will be SWIFTLY dealt with, like Ananias and Sapphira. You guys and your "just a spiritual kingdom" are immensely ignorant of God's plans as CLEARLY spelled out in ALL of scripture.
You keep using "Judaism". I don't care about "Judaism", I care about what God says about Christ's KINGDOM on the EARTH (which you know NOTHING about) and His KINGDOM in heaven (which you ALSO know NOTHING about).
P.S. The "Grammar scholar" can't even spell. What a FRAUD!
Last edited:
No, just like everyone else out there, what you "believe" is your UNDERSTANDING of "the text."
It is our UNDERSTANDING that we EACH believe.
The actual issue then, is over different UNDERSTANDINGS.
Over THAT and over the obviously DIFFERENT approaches to UNDERSTANDING what any one word, phrase, passage, and or passages is talking about.
An approach, and its result, is just as evident in passages like the following, as well.
Nehemiah 8:8 So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.
8:12 And all the people went their way to eat, and to drink, and to send portions, and to make great mirth, because they had understood the words that were declared unto them.
Acts 8:27 And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship, 8:28 Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet. 8:29 Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. 8:30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? 8:31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. 8:32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: 8:33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth. 8:34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? 8:35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
There is a clear pattern in passages like those - that believing should be in the OBJECT OF one's faith (or believing in) that believing should be in a sound UNDERSTANDING of what is being believed in.
As in the following also - here, the unbelief (or error believed IN, instead) is the result of an UNDERSTANDING that is off-base...
Romans 10:1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. 10:2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. 10:3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
Matthew 13:51 Jesus saith unto them, Have ye understood all these things? They say unto him, Yea, Lord.
Matthew 16:12 Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
Matthew 17:13 Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.
Mark 9:32 But they understood not that saying, and were afraid to ask him.
Luke 2:50 And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them.
Luke 9:45 But they understood not this saying, and it was hid from them, that they perceived it not: and they feared to ask him of that saying.
Luke 18:34 And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken.
John 8:27 They understood not that he spake to them of the Father.
John 10:6 This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood not what things they were which he spake unto them.
John 12:16 These things understood not his disciples at the first: but when Jesus was glorified, then remembered they that these things were written of him, and that they had done these things unto him.
Acts 17:11,12
The problem is not the belief of one poster or another.
Rather, it is that the object of their faith, is off, is a belief in an understanding that is off.
Whether, intended, or not, on their part.
Romans 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
Acts 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, 17:3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.
Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. 17:12 Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.
Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Now, if those passages, as I have laid them out towards sharing the UNDERSTANDING in this that they clearly point to IS a CORE issue...
If after all this - you still
hold that these things are merely about believing the text...as completely impossible as believing is, absent of an UNDERSTANDING at SOME level...
Well then, so be it - believe what you UNDERSTAND :chuckle:
Rom. 5:8
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Oh.
musterion
Well-known member
Danoh, why are you attempting to scold STP over the issue of different understandings?
It is true that people disagree about understandings. All the time. About all manner of things. And Paul does deal with that issue, when it comes to doctrine.
But throughout Scripture, the real issue usually comes down to unbelief -- people who know enough about what God has said but refuse to believe it.
That is why, as time goes on, I better understand why Paul forbade pointless, stupid discussions over different understandings, such as are common on TOL. It is because they are invariably a waste of time WHEN ONE SIDE DOES NOT TRULY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE BIBLE MUST BE THE SOLE AND FINAL AUTHORITY IN ALL SUCH DISCUSSIONS.
In short, one side simply does not believe what God said and they prove it by how they act with regard to "discussions" about the Bible.
There are many on TOL who SAY the Bible is their sole and highest authority but deny it by the way they discuss, debate and argue. It manifests itself in many ways here, all of them boiling down to evasiveness and dishonesty (if one truly believed it one would be bold, not evasive), which betrays a lack of respect for the power of God's Word, which is nothing more than unbelief.
And that's why such "discussions about understandings" are to be avoided once it's clear someone does not bow to the Word. Such people WANT to reduce all discussions to a simple matter of different understandings with no real final authority to decide the matter. They're happy with a Mexican standoff -- no one can say who ultimately is wrong -- which leads to the endless, repetitive debates that some warped minds thrive on. And repeatedly engaging them gives credibility to their unbelief.
That is why I always go back to the saving Gospel. If someone has that wrong, they are lost. And you'll notice, many people who LOVE to argue all manner of topics here are very reticent when asked to define what we must do to be saved. There's a reason for that.
So where exactly is STP more wrong than, say, GT?
It is true that people disagree about understandings. All the time. About all manner of things. And Paul does deal with that issue, when it comes to doctrine.
But throughout Scripture, the real issue usually comes down to unbelief -- people who know enough about what God has said but refuse to believe it.
That is why, as time goes on, I better understand why Paul forbade pointless, stupid discussions over different understandings, such as are common on TOL. It is because they are invariably a waste of time WHEN ONE SIDE DOES NOT TRULY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE BIBLE MUST BE THE SOLE AND FINAL AUTHORITY IN ALL SUCH DISCUSSIONS.
In short, one side simply does not believe what God said and they prove it by how they act with regard to "discussions" about the Bible.
There are many on TOL who SAY the Bible is their sole and highest authority but deny it by the way they discuss, debate and argue. It manifests itself in many ways here, all of them boiling down to evasiveness and dishonesty (if one truly believed it one would be bold, not evasive), which betrays a lack of respect for the power of God's Word, which is nothing more than unbelief.
And that's why such "discussions about understandings" are to be avoided once it's clear someone does not bow to the Word. Such people WANT to reduce all discussions to a simple matter of different understandings with no real final authority to decide the matter. They're happy with a Mexican standoff -- no one can say who ultimately is wrong -- which leads to the endless, repetitive debates that some warped minds thrive on. And repeatedly engaging them gives credibility to their unbelief.
That is why I always go back to the saving Gospel. If someone has that wrong, they are lost. And you'll notice, many people who LOVE to argue all manner of topics here are very reticent when asked to define what we must do to be saved. There's a reason for that.
So where exactly is STP more wrong than, say, GT?
Your scolding, just now, made my point :chuckle: - the very DISTINCTION between two things that I was pointing out - not scolding him about - other than within YOUR mis-UNDERSTANDING that I was scolding the guy).
Your club's high fives will have to suffice
Rom. 5:8
musterion
Well-known member
Don't be sensitive. I wasn't scolding. I was simply asking why, historically, you are invariably quicker to reprove/rebuke (or attempt to) someone you KNOW believes the Gospel of grace vs those you know not only DO NOT but in fact ACTIVELY OPPOSE it and seek to REPLACE it with another.
Not an issue of scolding, just curiosity.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Tam,
it's more complicated about your 'believe what God said' because you constrict everything to how it looks pre-Christ. There is a huge difference. It's still what God said, Heb 1, but when things are fulfilled, the old stuff is just a husk.
it's more complicated about your 'believe what God said' because you constrict everything to how it looks pre-Christ. There is a huge difference. It's still what God said, Heb 1, but when things are fulfilled, the old stuff is just a husk.
lol - am not being "sensitive" - again you make my point.
My supposedly being "sensitive" is your interpretation - as much as mine that you were scolding, lol
And nope, I don't favor any "side" over any other.
I mery conceded what ever side's point I agree with, where such is the case.
"NEITHER Jew, NOR Gentile..."
Or, The Neither/Nor Principle...
As in...Rom. 5:8
Interplanner
Well-known member
Acts 1 is definitely a rebuke and the correction to their misconception is that a royal or kingdom power is given to them. I don't think you have any imagination or sense of puns in the original.
There is nothing else in Acts that would support your type of kingdom, theirs.
You have to care about Judaism. Not caring to know what was there misses all that Mt 5-7 said. It misses all that Mt 23 said. It misses all that Gal 3, Phil 3 said. Paul was raised in Judaism and later referred to it with such slights as 'the weak and miserable principles of the world' and many other discreditations.
There was a conflict with Judaism. It cost lives. You have to know it and know the conflict before you go any further.
You are the most disqualified contributor here, saying both of these things in one post.