• We strive to be a place where there can be honest discussion, debate and fellowship. The rules are few so you can speak your mind. We know we are living in tough times and we hope to share answers and help with each other. Please join us.

New Covenant

CoreIssue

CoreIssue

Administrator
Staff member
Constantly seeing people trying to say these are the same thing when they are not.

When I asked them they Judah or Israel they go silent.

So let's take a look and discuss the issues.
 
Matthew 26:28 New International Version (NIV)
28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Hebrews 8:6-13 New International Version (NIV)
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.

7 For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8 But God found fault with the people and saida]">[a]:

“The days are coming, declares the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.
9 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,
and I turned away from them,
declares the Lord.
10 This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
11 No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
12 For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more.”b]">[b]

13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.
 
The blood covenant of Christ was applied to every. Jew and Gentile.

The new covenant to the houses of Israel and Judah is only applied to those two houses. No Gentiles.

The church is everyone. The body of Christ is church and Israel. Coheirs, not one heir.

The church is the bride of Christ. Israel is the wife of God.

In the MK the stone Temple returns. Animal sacrifices return.

You have animal sacrifices coexisting with the blood of Christ.

In the OT blood was a future promise. In the church it was immediate via the baptism of the Holy Spirit. In the MK is again future promise, thus the blood sacrifices on the alter.
 
1 Corinthians 11:23-26 New International Version (NIV)
23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

Until he comes does not mean until the end of time. It means the Rapture.
 
Due to failure to stay on topic, an anti-Isreal obsession and being unbiblical Jdyson has a forum of his own.
 
CoreIssue said:
Constantly seeing people trying to say these are the same thing when they are not.

When I asked them they Judah or Israel they go silent.

So let's take a look and discuss the issues.
Click to expand...
Israel or Judah? Oh, that one. You know, asking a Bible Student to really and seriously, with historical citations from the book and in rational terms, actually take sides in the Israeli Civil War is pretty advanced. I think it's a very interesting thought problem, although it does remind me quite a bit of "New Math" and is a bit of a nagging doubt.

It's very uncivilized, the United States itself should be trying to unite itself, the North and the South should really be trying harder to be United States. I see the real problems with that though.

The republic has serious problems. There is a class system under every bed, not only real academic classes, but class in terms of money, or occupation, or whether you are or are not personally military, military minded, or from the side that won or the side that lost the Civil War.

Personally, I believe it uncivilized to secretly contravene American due processes by appealing such things to foreign powers, whether Israel, Rome, Greece or even England. However, this type of intellectual historicism is EXTREMELY prevalent in American education, and I myself have been a victim of it.

There are both Americanist and Anti Americanist types of foreign civil war issues gaming, the one in Rome has been by far the most popular for almost a century in the North, which appeals to pity for Lincoln (he was murdered) and to false ideas about freedom (Black Lives Matter).
 
Heather Frank said:
CoreIssue said:
Constantly seeing people trying to say these are the same thing when they are not.

When I asked them they Judah or Israel they go silent.

So let's take a look and discuss the issues.
Click to expand...
Israel or Judah? Oh, that one. You know, asking a Bible Student to really and seriously, with historical citations from the book and in rational terms, actually take sides in the Israeli Civil War is pretty advanced. I think it's a very interesting thought problem, although it does remind me quite a bit of "New Math" and is a bit of a nagging doubt.

It's very uncivilized, the United States itself should be trying to unite itself, the North and the South should really be trying harder to be United States. I see the real problems with that though.

The republic has serious problems. There is a class system under every bed, not only real academic classes, but class in terms of money, or occupation, or whether you are or are not personally military, military minded, or from the side that won or the side that lost the Civil War.

Personally, I believe it uncivilized to secretly contravene American due processes by appealing such things to foreign powers, whether Israel, Rome, Greece or even England. However, this type of intellectual historicism is EXTREMELY prevalent in American education, and I myself have been a victim of it.

There are both Americanist and Anti Americanist types of foreign civil war issues gaming, the one in Rome has been by far the most popular for almost a century in the North, which appeals to pity for Lincoln (he was murdered) and to false ideas about freedom (Black Lives Matter).
Click to expand...

:offtopic:
 
CoreIssue said:
Heather Frank said:
CoreIssue said:
Constantly seeing people trying to say these are the same thing when they are not.

When I asked them they Judah or Israel they go silent.

So let's take a look and discuss the issues.
Click to expand...
Israel or Judah? Oh, that one. You know, asking a Bible Student to really and seriously, with historical citations from the book and in rational terms, actually take sides in the Israeli Civil War is pretty advanced. I think it's a very interesting thought problem, although it does remind me quite a bit of "New Math" and is a bit of a nagging doubt.

It's very uncivilized, the United States itself should be trying to unite itself, the North and the South should really be trying harder to be United States. I see the real problems with that though.

The republic has serious problems. There is a class system under every bed, not only real academic classes, but class in terms of money, or occupation, or whether you are or are not personally military, military minded, or from the side that won or the side that lost the Civil War.

Personally, I believe it uncivilized to secretly contravene American due processes by appealing such things to foreign powers, whether Israel, Rome, Greece or even England. However, this type of intellectual historicism is EXTREMELY prevalent in American education, and I myself have been a victim of it.

There are both Americanist and Anti Americanist types of foreign civil war issues gaming, the one in Rome has been by far the most popular for almost a century in the North, which appeals to pity for Lincoln (he was murdered) and to false ideas about freedom (Black Lives Matter).
Click to expand...
OFF- TOPIC.
Click to expand...
Excuse me, the topic was the division of the Kingdom of Israel into two parts? Oh, that's right, this is one of those hyper religious forums, no countries exist in it except Israel from prehistoric times to the death of Christ, Paul and John. I always forget how narrow-minded you people are.
 
CoreIssue said:
Matthew 26:28 New International Version (NIV)
28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Hebrews 8:6-13 New International Version (NIV)
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.

7 For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8 But God found fault with the people and saida]">[a]:

“The days are coming, declares the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.
9 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,
and I turned away from them,
declares the Lord.
10 This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
11 No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
12 For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more.”b]">[b]

13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.
Click to expand...
The meaning of the word "new" (kainos) in the NT means "new and improved," not "brand-new"). In other words, the new covenant is continuous with the old one but renewed from the outward forms of the laws of the nation of Israel ("the letter of the law") to the inner forms of the laws for the new-covenant, international church. For example, Paul describes at length his ministry of the new covenant in 2 Corinthians 3:3--6-18.
 
CoreIssue said:
that sounds like replacement theology,
Click to expand...
It's not, because the continuity between the old and new covenants is maintained. For example, the external form of food laws is no longer required because both Jesus and Paul said that all foods are clean, which angered the Pharisees. The continuity, though, is that we Christians need further cleansing of our lives from the sins that remain in us, though God has already declared us "not-guilty."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top