We are not yet in the New Covenant prophecied by Jeremiah and Ezekiel - that is the Millennial reign

[Magenta]

I did mean dual or double fulfillment not meaning, I an french speaking and I do not always use
the proper words. if you do a search on this you will find examples of dual fulfillment of prophecy.

Blessings.

I was thinking the word "application" .

 

[maxwel]

Hi All, thanks for the warm welcome by many of you. Looking forward to a lot of fruitful conversations with everyone here. I have quite a few ideas that I would love to discuss with many of you especially since I've researched them quite deeply in the past few years and have a lot of evidence and coherence in the explanations. The only barrier I've faced till now is arguments in bad faith by fanatics. Let's hope that is not an inhibitor here.

In this thread, I would love to reply to all of you individually but will keep that for a little later. I will share an image and a write-up I wrote on some of my findings below. They will shed more light on the content of this thread though I would love to get more detailed later by answering some of your questions and vice versa.

Regarding Covenants, see if this works -

Regarding Messiahship, the Anti-Christ and the infallibility of the New Testament -

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qj-74F_MqzRViJeuetkqZQIsynv11gDVWOj_82Dl6ag/edit

PS: I predicted the Israel-Palestine conflict and the protests that happened before that for months, early this year (and in fact a few years earlier at the start of the pandemic. I also predicted the inflation and cost-of-living crisis that started around September 2022 - a Shmitah year. More on that in the link shared above. I am making the assertion that the Israel-Palestine conflict will lead to a repeat of 70 AD and hence the dual-fulfillment of Daniel's 70 weeks prophecy unlike the 2000 year gap theory held popularly by modern-day Christians)

Predictions:

"I predicted the Israel-Palestine conflict"
You can't really "predict" a conflict that has been ongoing for 75 years.
They have been in perpetual conflict for 75 years, with Palestine attacking them in some way almost weekly, and constant threats to attack them more.
* You can't really "predict" a conflict for people already in a constant state of conflict, and who historically fight all the time.

"I also predicted the inflation and cost-of-living crisis"
This was obvious to everyone before it happened.
* You can't really "predict" inflation when everyone in the world knew it was coming, and knew it was inevitable.



It would be great, in this thread you started to debate doctrinal issues, if you could focus on those doctrinal issues.

Thank you.



.

 

[Dino246]

Covenant and testament are not the same thing...

For a testament to be in force, one must be dead, not so for a covenant.

Yes, they are...

Hebrews 9:16-17 KJV For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

Hebrews 9:16-17 NIV In the case of a will,[d] it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, 17 because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living.

Note d: Hebrews 9:16 Same Greek word as covenant; also in verse 17 (emphasis added)

Please, do your homework.

 

[Dino246]

No prophecy has double "meaning". That would mean G-d is trying to say two things at the same time, which would be considered deceitful. Maybe you mean, "dual fulfillment", which I completely agree with - near-fulfillment and far-fulfillment. There are so many examples of that - dual fulfillment of the Elijah prophecy in Malachi, dual fulfillment of Daniel 9 which would mean there are two Messiahs - One King and One Prince (both of which I describe in the document), dual fulfillment of the beast prophecies, dual fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14 - we Christians believe that Isaiah is talking about Jesus and I agree but that is the far-fulfillment. When Isaiah himself wrote that verse, he was thinking of his own son - "Clearly, the woman mentioned in Isaiah 7:14 and 8:3-4 are one and the same and that she is Isaiah’s wife. The real sign to King Ahaz is that Isaiah’s child will be born quickly " (https://aish.com/does-isaiah-714-refer-to-a-virgin-birth/). But G-d used the prophecy again during Jesus's time.

Usually, when there are dual fulfillments, the first time it occurs, it would not have gotten fully fulfilled. There would have been some things missed out.

If God intended to speak of things "near" and things "far" in the same prophecy, then the prophecy does indeed have a "double meaning", and there is no deceit. Don't conflate the reader's confusion and ignorance with God's motives.

 

[maxwel]

No prophecy has double "meaning". That would mean G-d is trying to say two things at the same time, which would be considered deceitful.

Claims Require Proof:
Here you are making a philosophical claim about scripture, without proving that claim.
Claims require proof.
We can't just claim a thing because we "feel" it is true, or "say" it is true.

Let's examine the claim:
CLAIM: A prophecy cannot have a double meaning because that would indicate deceit.
a.) Logically, deceit would only occur if two propositions contradict each other.
b.) It is common for multiple propositions to be different, but without containing a contradiction between them.
c.) Therefore, there is no logical reason a passage cannot contain several propositions which are different in some way (more than one meaning or point) without also containing contradictions or deceit.

CONCLUSION:
1.) If we make a claim that does not hold up to simple logic, or to simple principles of language, then it is proven false.
2.) It IS possible that some prophecies, or all prophecies, do NOT contain dual meanings. But if so, this would only mean there is some other explanation, because the explanation you gave is already proven to be false.


Take care everyone, and have a great week.

.

 

[Cameron143]

Claims Require Proof:
Here you are making a philosophical claim about scripture, without proving that claim.
Claims require proof.
We can't just claim a thing because we "feel" it is true, or "say" it is true.

Let's examine the claim:
CLAIM: A prophecy cannot have a double meaning because that would indicate deceit.
a.) Logically, deceit would only occur if two propositions contradict each other.
b.) It is common for multiple propositions to be different, but without containing a contradiction between them.
c.) Therefore, there is no logical reason a passage cannot contain several propositions which are different in some way (more than one meaning or point) without also containing contradictions or deceit.

CONCLUSION:
1.) If we make a claim that does not hold up to simple logic, or to simple principles of language, then it is proven false.
2.) It IS possible that some prophecies, or all prophecies, do NOT contain dual meanings. But if so, this would only mean there is some other explanation, because the explanation you gave is already proven to be false.


Take care everyone, and have a great week.

.

I like how you think all you shared is simple logic.

 

[DavidIsrael]

If God intended to speak of things "near" and things "far" in the same prophecy, then the prophecy does indeed have a "double meaning", and there is no deceit. Don't conflate the reader's confusion and ignorance with God's motives.

I don't agree. He is not intending to speak through "near" and "far" fulfillment. It just so happened that it didn't get fulfilled fully the first time, because Man was not ready, and hence has to be fulfilled again. When there is double "meaning" in anything, there is a hidden and often not-very-good intention behind it. For example, in the case of Jesus and John the Baptizer. What was the ideal scenario - He would have been accepted as the Messiah, He would have been made King, He would have brought the Lost Tribes of Israel back, and so on. But no one would have died for our sins. So Jesus came at a particular time in history, when they were expecting a Messiah to redeem them from Roman captivity (which exists even today, as Rome is in control of the world even now), and when they wanted nothing other than that. Even John the Baptiser thought Jesus came for that, hence why he was in doubt towards the end. And they were not ready for any new interpretations and so on and G-d just used this scenario to ensure that Jesus died in such a hostile environment (particularly on the cross where he died of asphyxiation - that is key too, G-d took away the breath from Jesus that He blew into Adam because Jesus was the Second Adam) so that our sins could be redeemed.

As such, G-d wouldn't want any prophecy to have any double or hidden meanings and so on as that would mean he is trying to trick us when He Himself clearly states that Scripture is for our enrichment. But surely it is a test of our humility and whether we are willing to be patient to wait for Him to reveal things than just we jumping to conclusions. It is just that Man is not ready for G-d's plans and always has his own interpretations and lenses and G-d enjoys showing such men how they are wrong.

 

[Cameron143]

I don't agree. He is not intending to speak through "near" and "far" fulfillment. It just so happened that it didn't get fulfilled fully the first time, because Man was not ready, and hence has to be fulfilled again. When there is double "meaning" in anything, there is a hidden and often not-very-good intention behind it. For example, in the case of Jesus and John the Baptizer. What was the ideal scenario - He would have been accepted as the Messiah, He would have been made King, He would have brought the Lost Tribes of Israel back, and so on. But no one would have died for our sins. So Jesus came at a particular time in history, when they were expecting a Messiah to redeem them from Roman captivity (which exists even today, as Rome is in control of the world even now), and when they wanted nothing other than that. Even John the Baptiser thought Jesus came for that, hence why he was in doubt towards the end. And they were not ready for any new interpretations and so on and G-d just used this scenario to ensure that Jesus died in such a hostile environment (particularly on the cross where he died of asphyxiation - that is key too, G-d took away the breath from Jesus that He blew into Adam because Jesus was the Second Adam) so that our sins could be redeemed.

As such, G-d wouldn't want any prophecy to have any double or hidden meanings and so on as that would mean he is trying to trick us when He Himself clearly states that Scripture is for our enrichment. But surely it is a test of our humility and whether we are willing to be patient to wait for Him to reveal things than just we jumping to conclusions. It is just that Man is not ready for G-d's plans and always has his own interpretations and lenses and G-d enjoys showing such men how they are wrong.

Where in scripture does it say that man wasn't ready and that it was a test?

 

[Nehemiah6]

So the key to Daniel's 70-week's prophecy, which is Daniel 9:25-27 is the legend given in Daniel 9:24

It does not matter about Daniel's prophecy if you are DEAD WRONG about what really matters.

Christ said that the New Covenant would go into effect when He had shed His blood for the remission of sins. And that is exactly what happened. as confirmed by the tearing apart of the temple veil when Christ died. But since you do not believe the words of Christ, and you do not believe that Christians (both Jews and Gentiles) are presently under the New Covenant (all clearly spelled out in the New Testament, which also means New Covenant), all the rest of your blather means nothing.

So do you know that you have been saved by grace, and if so on what do you base your belief? That is what you need to address. Never mind about Daniel's prophecy.

 

[DavidIsrael]

Claims Require Proof:
Here you are making a philosophical claim about scripture, without proving that claim.
Claims require proof.
We can't just claim a thing because we "feel" it is true, or "say" it is true.

Let's examine the claim:
CLAIM: A prophecy cannot have a double meaning because that would indicate deceit.
a.) Logically, deceit would only occur if two propositions contradict each other.
b.) It is common for multiple propositions to be different, but without containing a contradiction between them.
c.) Therefore, there is no logical reason a passage cannot contain several propositions which are different in some way (more than one meaning or point) without also containing contradictions or deceit.

CONCLUSION:
1.) If we make a claim that does not hold up to simple logic, or to simple principles of language, then it is proven false.
2.) It IS possible that some prophecies, or all prophecies, do NOT contain dual meanings. But if so, this would only mean there is some other explanation, because the explanation you gave is already proven to be false.


Take care everyone, and have a great week.

.

Claims require proof? Coming from religious people? I would rather say, "Claims require reasonable explanations", cause you can't have proof for most religious claims. Did Elisha have proof that Elijah really went up to heaven on a chariot? No, but you still believe. So many such things in the Bible.

"a.) Logically, deceit would only occur if two propositions contradict each other." - not true, there is such a thing as half-truth, which is more dangerous than a lie. So you can use some factual statements and add word salad to it to cook up your story and though there is truth to it, the fact that it is not completely coherent and that you are conscientious while doing it would mean, you are deceitful. You can be deceitful without lying or contradicting. We live in a generation that is best evidence of that and I am surprised I am having to explain this. The definition of deceit - "the action or practice of deceiving someone by concealing or misrepresenting the truth." If G-d's intention through not revealing that some prophecies are dual while others are not is bad, then that would mean G-d is deceitful. If G-d's intention is purely that people have to be patient and humble to allow G-d to reveal what is happening and going to happen ahead, then that is purely a testing strategy - like how the Jews were tested by the Messiah being the Son of G-d. So, if someone says that prophecies have double meanings, then they are trying to say that they have two completely different explanations, without one linking to the other. That is not what is happening. It is dual fulfillment where usually the first fulfillment is actually not a complete fulfillment and hence the second shot is when it really gets fulfilled fully because enough time has been given to mankind for that.

"b.) It is common for multiple propositions to be different, but without containing a contradiction between them." - possible but not in prophecies. Prophecies are expectations of things to happen. They are for us to be prepared. How can we be prepared if we have all the faculties to understand something (which may not have existed in the past), but cannot still know what the proposition of what we are reading is? That would be considered deceitful by the person who gives us the text

"c.) Therefore, there is no logical reason a passage cannot contain several propositions which are different in some way (more than one meaning or point) without also containing contradictions or deceit." - again, what you are talking about are passages. I am specifically referring to prophecies and their fulfillment. To claim that prophecies were intended to have multiple meanings is different from claiming they have multiple fulfillments. If they have multiple meanings, they were written with an intention to play tricks. You wouldn't prophecy that the Messiah would die on the cross and live happily with his descendants in the same passage. Cause if the first thing happens when he doesn't have children, then the second thing would be a contradiction. Such a conundrum does exist in Isaiah 53 but of course, we Christians assume that the descendants are spiritual descendants, which I don't agree with. But they are not in the same verse, that's why I don't consider it a contradiction. In the same passage, one verse can refer to one person and another to another. Like this one -

[He now explains why Balaam made duplicate statements each time:] “I shall see him, but not now”--this is David; “I shall behold him, but he is not near”--this is the King Mashiach; “There shall shoot forth a star out of Jacob”--this is David; “And a scepter shall rise out of Israel”--this is the King Mashiach; “And shall strike the corners of Moab”--this is David... “And rule over all the children of Seth”--this is the King Mashiach...

Page 5 - https://images.shulcloud.com/618/uploads/PDFs/Divrei_Torah/150415-the-jewish-messiah.pdf

"1.) If we make a claim that does not hold up to simple logic, or to simple principles of language, then it is proven false." - sure, but that's if you've proven that what you have is simple "logic".

"It IS possible that some prophecies, or all prophecies, do NOT contain dual meanings. But if so, this would only mean there is some other explanation, because the explanation you gave is already proven to be false." - no prophecy contains dual "meanings". They are prophecies, come on! Some "texts" can contain dual meanings. Texts and prophecies are not the same thing. Prophecies are accurate, else you can just keep tip-toeing around the topic and explain away why you believe the prophecy has been fulfilled - like the Isaiah 53 prophecy about the Messiah having descendants - we all know Jesus will never have physical descendants. And the term offspring/descendant has not been used spiritually before so why do we assume that in Isaiah 53:10 alone? Cause it adds up to our explanation of Jesus being the Messiah?

 

[John146]

Yes, they are...

Hebrews 9:16-17 KJV For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

Hebrews 9:16-17 NIV In the case of a will,[d] it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, 17 because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living.

Note d: Hebrews 9:16 Same Greek word as covenant; also in verse 17 (emphasis added)

Please, do your homework.

Biblically, there are covenants throughout that required no death. Should I post them all?

 

[DavidIsrael]

Where in scripture does it say that man wasn't ready and that it was a test?

Why else does Scripture not explicitly state the Messiah will be the Son of G-d? Also, the Scripture doesn't say a lot of things - doesn't mean you will only believe what Scripture says. Scripture does not say that you can not follow the Sabbath when a person's life is in danger. But Jesus did not follow the Sabbath in Mark 2. That is a concept called Pikuach Nefesh among the Jews and that is a Talmudic concept but there is nothing wrong in following that because we know that is what G-d would want us to do. Life is more important than just following the Law because the Law was made for Life.

 

[DavidIsrael]

It does not matter about Daniel's prophecy if you are DEAD WRONG about what really matters.

Christ said that the New Covenant would go into effect when He had shed His blood for the remission of sins. And that is exactly what happened. as confirmed by the tearing apart of the temple veil when Christ died. But since you do not believe the words of Christ, and you do not believe that Christians (both Jews and Gentiles) are presently under the New Covenant (all clearly spelled out in the New Testament, which also means New Covenant), all the rest of your blather means nothing.

So do you know that you have been saved by grace, and if so on what do you base your belief? That is what you need to address. Never mind about Daniel's prophecy.

I never said we are not in a "new covenant" - small "n". I only said we are not in the "New Covenant" - big "N", that is promised in Jeremiah and Ezekiel and I have given a lengthy, logical explanation why.

"So do you know that you have been saved by grace, and if so on what do you base your belief? That is what you need to address. " - I don't believe Jesus is G-d because of the New Testament though I have massively been impacted positively by it. I believe Jesus is G-d because the Holy Spirit revealed it to me. That's all that matters. There are so many people who read the Bible - do they all believe? No. The conviction comes from the Spirit. And, just because I believe some parts of the NT are not right, doesn't mean I don't believe the entire NT is infallible. I just believe the writings after Jesus were not supposed to be part of Scripture as they don't add up to the OT and were merely interpretations. They should have been part of a Christian Talmud, that's it - Paul, Peter and others, though they all offer a lot of good insight actually.

 

[Cameron143]

Why else does Scripture not explicitly state the Messiah will be the Son of G-d? Also, the Scripture doesn't say a lot of things - doesn't mean you will only believe what Scripture says. Scripture does not say that you can not follow the Sabbath when a person's life is in danger. But Jesus did not follow the Sabbath in Mark 2. That is a concept called Pikuach Nefesh among the Jews and that is a Talmudic concept but there is nothing wrong in following that because we know that is what G-d would want us to do. Life is more important than just following the Law because the Law was made for Life.

We have biblical principles for all you stated. They are actually found in the Bible. We are allowed the freedom to do anything not forbidden. We aren't allowed to make stuff up, whether it sounds reasonable or not.

 

[DavidIsrael]

Consider what Scripture has to say about it:
Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. But with most of them God was not well pleased, for their bodies were scattered in the wilderness. Now these things became our examples, to the intent that we should not lust after evil things as they also lusted. And do not become idolaters as were some of them. As it is written, "The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play." Nor let us commit sexual immorality, as some of them did, and in one day twenty-three thousand fell; nor let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed by serpents; nor complain, as some of them also complained, and were destroyed by the destroyer. Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.

- 1 Corinthians 10:1-12

Are you trying to argue against any specific statement of mine? Kindly enlighten me. I don't know what you're trying to tell me.

 

[DavidIsrael]

We have biblical principles for all you stated. They are actually found in the Bible. We are allowed the freedom to do anything not forbidden. We aren't allowed to make stuff up, whether it sounds reasonable or not.

Not true. Can you tell me where in the Bible there is a justification for Jesus not keeping the Sabbath as in Mark 2? The Bible does not say that you can break the commandments or relax yourself in certain circumstances. But that is common sense and Jesus did so rightly and even the Talmud writes a principle on this - Pikuach Nefesh. Scripture is whatever is true. The Word of G-d is whatever is true. Truth is the Word of G-d. Period.

 

[selahsays]

I never said we are not in a "new covenant" - small "n". I only said we are not in the "New Covenant" - big "N", that is promised in Jeremiah and Ezekiel and I have given a lengthy, logical explanation why.

"So do you know that you have been saved by grace, and if so on what do you base your belief? That is what you need to address. " - I don't believe Jesus is G-d because of the New Testament though I have massively been impacted positively by it. I believe Jesus is G-d because the Holy Spirit revealed it to me. That's all that matters. There are so many people who read the Bible - do they all believe? No. The conviction comes from the Spirit. And, just because I believe some parts of the NT are not right, doesn't mean I don't believe the entire NT is infallible. I just believe the writings after Jesus were not supposed to be part of Scripture as they don't add up to the OT and were merely interpretations. They should have been part of a Christian Talmud, that's it - Paul, Peter and others, though they all offer a lot of good insight actually.

Do you not know that Jesus Christ is the New Covenant?
Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you. - Luke 22:20

 

[Nehemiah6]

I never said we are not in a "new covenant" - small "n". I only said we are not in the "New Covenant" - big "N", that is promised in Jeremiah and Ezekiel and I have given a lengthy, logical explanation why.

Yes, and I too am speaking about the New Covenant (capitalized). It is presently in effect, so you are actually REJECTING the words of Christ or the significance of His shed blood for the New Covenant.

"So do you know that you have been saved by grace, and if so on what do you base your belief? That is what you need to address. "

You did not really answer this question. You did not say anything about the shed blood of Christ, and how it applies to you, and how it is related to being saved by grace. So you have a very serious problem right there.

I don't believe Jesus is G-d because of the New Testament though I have massively been impacted positively by it... And, just because I believe some parts of the NT are not right, doesn't mean I don't believe the entire NT is infallible. I just believe the writings after Jesus were not supposed to be part of Scripture as they don't add up to the OT and were merely interpretations. They should have been part of a Christian Talmud, that's it - Paul, Peter and others, though they all offer a lot of good insight actually.[/QUOTE] This says a lot about you (a newbie) who does not really believe that the whole New Testament is the Word of God. So when you said "doesn't mean I don't believe the entire NT is infallible" that could not be what you meant. So this merely compounds your problem. I wonder who has influenced you to go into such serious errors?

 

[DavidIsrael]

Do you not know that Jesus Christ is the New Covenant?
Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you. - Luke 22:20

I have already explained that. He did start a new covenant but that is part of the Old Covenant just as Moses, David, Abraham all had separate covenants/promises made to them in the same covenant which we call the Old Covenant. The New Covenant mentioned in the Old Testament in Ezekiel and Jeremiah will start only after the expectations mentioned about it there are fulfilled. I've explained what those expectations are in the document.

 

[posthuman]

How can we be in a New Covenant, if the prophecies of the Old Covenant have still not yet been fulfilled? I am sure most of us would agree that Daniel's 70 Weeks Prophecy, an OT and mother of all prophecies, is not yet fulfilled. Even Isaiah 49's and many other OT's mention of the regathering of the Lost Tribes of Israel is still not fulfilled and in fact, the Messiah was supposed to do that.

what in your view makes these "Sinai covenant prophecies"?

isn't the promise Abrahamic?