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

[Dino246]

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

Irrelevant. You claimed that "testament" and "covenant" are not the same thing. I demonstrated that they are. Are you going to concede the point, or just end the conversation as is your usual practice when you are shown to be wrong?

 

[selahsays]

@DavidIsrael
Just a piece of advice. Always back up your claims with Scripture.

 

[NightTwister]

 

[John146]

Irrelevant. You claimed that "testament" and "covenant" are not the same thing. I demonstrated that they are. Are you going to concede the point, or just end the conversation as is your usual practice when you are shown to be wrong?

Yes or no, does a testament require the death of the testator?
Yes or no, does a covenant require death for it to come to pass?

 

[Blade]

Is Paul right in Hebrews 8:8 (assuming Paul wrote it) when he quotes Jeremiah 31:31-34 and assumes that the new covenant Jesus started is the same New Covenant prophecied in the Old Testament? 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.

More on this after I hear from the others ...

Which is it? Well at first you stated "We are not yet in the New Covenant". Then your post seems to ask "is Paul right...". Are you telling us or you don't know?

 

[Dino246]

Yes or no, does a testament require the death of the testator?
Yes or no, does a covenant require death for it to come to pass?

Dodge. Do you concede the point or not?

 

[John146]

Dodge. Do you concede the point or not?

Is that a yes or no? I'm proving the point. Here's one example:

Genesis 9:13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.

Hmmmmm.....

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

 

[NotmebutHim]

 

[Nehemiah6]

Yes or no, does a testament require the death of the testator? Yes or no, does a covenant require death for it to come to pass?

What a bunch of futility. Have you never read Hebrews chapter 9? If not take a close look at the whole chapter, particularly these two verses.

DEATH OF THE TESATOR
14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

AND NEW COVENANT IN FORCE AFTER THAT
15 And for this cause he is the Mediator of the New Testament [alternatively "Covenant"], that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

 

[DavidIsrael]

Which is it? Well at first you stated "We are not yet in the New Covenant". Then your post seems to ask "is Paul right...". Are you telling us or you don't know?

I am stating that though Jesus started a new covenant, it is not the same covenant promised as the New Covenant in the books of Jeremiah and Ezekiel - which is a conclusion Paul makes after Jesus' time in Hebrews in and in many other books/letters. Check the explanation towards the end of this document -

Page 6 - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qj-74F_MqzRViJeuetkqZQIsynv11gDVWOj_82Dl6ag/edit

The below image will clarify it for you -

 

[posthuman]

I believe Jesus is G-d because the Holy Spirit revealed it to me. That's all that matters

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.

Numbers 12:5-9​

Then the LORD came down in the pillar of cloud and stood in the door of the tabernacle, and called Aaron and Miriam. ​

And they both went forward. ​

Then He said, ​

"Hear now My words: ​

If there is a prophet among you, I, the LORD, make Myself known to him in a vision; I speak to him in a dream. ​

Not so with My servant Moses; he is faithful in all My house. I speak with him face to face, even plainly, and not in dark sayings; and he sees the form of the LORD. ​

Why then were you not afraid to speak against My servant Moses?" ​

So the anger of the LORD was aroused against them, and He departed.​

 

[DavidIsrael]

@DavidIsrael
Just a piece of advice. Always back up your claims with Scripture.

Can you tell me which claim you are specifically referring to? Cause I usually do them and I feel many people use what you just said as a debate tactic when they don't have answers to my questions.

Also, not everything can be backed up by Scripture. For example, when Jesus or even if someone in the OT broke the Sabbath to save a life, there is no Scriptural backing for that but it is common sense that the Law was made for man not man for the Law - Pikuach Nefesh.

 

[DavidIsrael]

Numbers 12:5-9​

Then the LORD came down in the pillar of cloud and stood in the door of the tabernacle, and called Aaron and Miriam. ​

And they both went forward. ​

Then He said, ​

"Hear now My words: ​

If there is a prophet among you, I, the LORD, make Myself known to him in a vision; I speak to him in a dream. ​

Not so with My servant Moses; he is faithful in all My house. I speak with him face to face, even plainly, and not in dark sayings; and he sees the form of the LORD. ​

Why then were you not afraid to speak against My servant Moses?" ​

So the anger of the LORD was aroused against them, and He departed.​

Of course I am aware of this. Why are you quoting me this? I did not reject the Apostle's writings as Scriptural because I don't like them. It is just because they don't add up to the OT. So it's your onus to defend their writings now. If you use the OT and Jesus' words, that is more than enough to understand what G-d has to say to us. Anything beyond it is unnecessary and just extra helpful as advices.

 

[DavidIsrael]

Jesus didn't break the commandment; He fulfilled it. As would we. If you can get an ox out of a ditch, you can surely get a person out of their "ditches".
But I'm not under the old covenant. No such demands exist for me. But since you believe you are, you might want to take a close look at Matthew 9:10-13.

Jesus has not yet fulfilled everything in the Old Testament. He said He will but the process is not yet complete. If it's not yet fully fulfilled, we can't simply jump to a New Covenant that is outside of the Old (though we can be in a new covenant inside it just as Moses was inside a new covenant despite Abraham's covenant being incomplete). Also, Jesus Himself says that we are still to follow the commandments (not for salvation because the commandments were never followed for salvation - that's just Christians and Paul making a false dichotomy between the OC and NC) -

Matthew 5:19-20

 

[DavidIsrael]

yes,

as an example -

John 11:49-52​

And one of them, Caiaphas, being high priest that year, said to them, ​

"You know nothing at all, nor do you consider that it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and not that the whole nation should perish." ​

Now this he did not say on his own [authority;] but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, and not for that nation only, but also that He would gather together in one the children of God who were scattered abroad.​

multiple "meanings" spoken by the Holy Spirit in one prophecy, each non-contradictory but separately true

Multiple meanings =/= Multiple purposes.

False equivalence. Some of you really need a lesson on language and English.

Multiple meanings =/= Multiple purposes =/= Multiple fulfillments. They all mean the same.

 

[DavidIsrael]

Where is that in Scripture?


Again, where is that in Scripture?


Um, no, it's not.


For the third time, where is that in Scripture?


Fourth time.


And... number five. You're on a roll. Any other unbiblical speculation you want to add, while you're at it?

I will quote you Scripture if you argue against my main claim - is Paul right when he says we are in the New Covenant prophesied in Jeremiah and Ezekiel as quoted by him in Hebrews 8:8? If yes, why have the prerequisites for the same as mentioned by me in that document not yet been fulfilled? Now, you want me to quote Scripture but you won't agree that the books you yourself consider as Scripture don't add up with each other. So you don't mind people adding books to the Bible after Jesus when it was completely unnecessary but you want me to have a Scriptural reference for everything.

Can you justify Moses murdering the Egyptian using Scripture?

 

[DavidIsrael]

Jesus didn't break the commandment; He fulfilled it. As would we. If you can get an ox out of a ditch, you can surely get a person out of their "ditches".
But I'm not under the old covenant. No such demands exist for me. But since you believe you are, you might want to take a close look at Matthew 9:10-13.

Also, you said He fulfilled the commandment. That happened at the cross. How can he break a commandment before he died on the cross (which is what you claim to be the fulfillment of the commandment)?

 

[John146]

What a bunch of futility. Have you never read Hebrews chapter 9? If not take a close look at the whole chapter, particularly these two verses.

DEATH OF THE TESATOR
14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

AND NEW COVENANT IN FORCE AFTER THAT
15 And for this cause he is the Mediator of the New Testament [alternatively "Covenant"], that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

I’ll stick with what the Bible actually says. I will not question nor change it to fit my narrative. It is a sad thing that people fail to trust the perfect, preserved words of God.

 

[posthuman]

Of course I am aware of this. Why are you quoting me this? I did not reject the Apostle's writings as Scriptural because I don't like them. It is just because they don't add up to the OT. So it's your onus to defend their writings now. If you use the OT and Jesus' words, that is more than enough to understand what G-d has to say to us. Anything beyond it is unnecessary and just extra helpful as advices.

i think the extraordinary claim is on your part, that you reject the ones the Messiah sent, with whom He spoke face to face, and not in dark sayings.

 

[Cameron143]

Jesus has not yet fulfilled everything in the Old Testament. He said He will but the process is not yet complete. If it's not yet fully fulfilled, we can't simply jump to a New Covenant that is outside of the Old (though we can be in a new covenant inside it just as Moses was inside a new covenant despite Abraham's covenant being incomplete). Also, Jesus Himself says that we are still to follow the commandments (not for salvation because the commandments were never followed for salvation - that's just Christians and Paul making a false dichotomy between the OC and NC) -

Matthew 5:19-20

This is not true. The old covenant no longer exists. Hebrews 8:13...a new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away...