ECT Things known for ages--Acts 15

Right Divider

Right Divider

Body part
Interplanner said:
You have a secret meaning for NT, so I adopted the apostles material to be clear that I was referring to Matt--Rev. Because when I was saying those docs, you said that wasn't the NT.

There are less than 10 references to the new covenant and only 1 hints of something being intra-Israel. Most of the time it is for all mankind who believe and most of the time is is connected to the mission now.

That is why I find you obtuse.

God did not cancel, he fulfilled it in Christ. It is the mission to the nations. That is what the whole vision of isaiah is about, and it is quoted that why by the NT, which is my authority instead of your pronouncements.
Click to expand...
Just now replying to a post from January? Too busy reading commentaries?
 
Last edited:
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Right Divider said:
The new TESTAMENT cannot begin until the DEAD of the TESTATOR.

Go get a Bible and read about it.
Click to expand...




So once again, you are professionally ambiguous. What is your name for the documents that include the accounts of Jesus' life and the apostle's letters?

Then you will start communicating.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
As far as what I have been saying about the current reality of the new covenant, I don't see the conflict even if we go with your line 'there must be the death of the testator' because that was Christ and that means/meant the new covenant was in effect at that point. Is your fundamental doctrine that the new covenant comes in your supposed millenium?
 
Right Divider

Right Divider

Body part
Interplanner said:
As far as what I have been saying about the current reality of the new covenant, I don't see the conflict even if we go with your line 'there must be the death of the testator' because that was Christ and that means/meant the new covenant was in effect at that point. Is your fundamental doctrine that the new covenant comes in your supposed millenium?
Click to expand...
"my line"???
Heb 9:16-17 (KJV)​
(9:16) For where a testament [is], there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. (9:17) For a testament [is] of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
​

I thought that you were a big fan of the book to the Hebrews.

The VAST majority of M,M,L & J cannot be NT according to the Bible.

"supposed millennium"???
See Rev 20.

What a dork you are!
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
As far as what I have been saying about the current reality of the new covenant, I don't see the conflict even if we go with your line 'there must be the death of the testator' because that was Christ and that means/meant the new covenant was in effect at that point. Is your fundamental doctrine that the new covenant comes in your supposed millenium?
Click to expand...

Why did Moses go up high on the mountain to be with God before returning AGAIN with the law?
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Right Divider said:
"my line"???
Heb 9:16-17 (KJV)​
(9:16) For where a testament [is], there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. (9:17) For a testament [is] of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
​

I thought that you were a big fan of the book to the Hebrews.

The VAST majority of M,M,L & J cannot be NT according to the Bible.

"supposed millennium"???
See Rev 20.

What a dork you are!
Click to expand...





The Indestructible Life lived for us is part of the gift of the new covenant. It was the intended gift all along. The Lamb had to be spotless. You are splitting silly hairs. I meant that the line is what you are grasping at right now to hold your system together.

that's why all of the synoptics and John are in the NT (as a collection of docs) and the new covenant as a arrangement that superceedes the old.

Glad you think the new covenant is current because you have been treating it, through how you do Heb 8, as something that won't happen until the millenium, which is not actually there as most people like you think.

Could you please grow up about doing your insulting?
 
Lighthouse

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Interplanner said:
All you have to know is that the weight of everything falls on 'in the Gospel'. To show this emphasis, some trans have it first, before the 3 things shared.

Either way, the Gospel is the vehicle through which they are shared.

There is no land restoration.

there is no question that blessings were going to the nations.

The only contest or conflict with Judaism here was whether it would be channeled through the law or the Gospel. Paul says the Gospel and that even though this was embedded in the OT, it could not be seen in Judaism's way of looking ('kata sarka'). Only in Christ is the veil of Judaism removed.
Click to expand...
Why couldn't Israel see it?
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
The Indestructible Life lived for us is part of the gift of the new covenant. It was the intended gift all along. The Lamb had to be spotless. You are splitting silly hairs. I meant that the line is what you are grasping at right now to hold your system together.

that's why all of the synoptics and John are in the NT (as a collection of docs) and the new covenant as a arrangement that superceedes the old.

Glad you think the new covenant is current because you have been treating it, through how you do Heb 8, as something that won't happen until the millenium, which is not actually there as most people like you think.

Could you please grow up about doing your insulting?
Click to expand...

Straight out of a commentary...
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Lighthouse said:
Why couldn't Israel see it?
Click to expand...




That is what Gal 3:17 is about. It is saying Israel (Judaism as Paul grew up in it) had switched the Promise and voided it for the Law. Israel thought everything Messianic was going to arrive through the Law, not the Gospel. That is the real 'replacement' theology problem. The modern one is fake theology.
 
Right Divider

Right Divider

Body part
Interplanner said:
The Indestructible Life lived for us is part of the gift of the new covenant. It was the intended gift all along. The Lamb had to be spotless. You are splitting silly hairs. I meant that the line is what you are grasping at right now to hold your system together.

that's why all of the synoptics and John are in the NT (as a collection of docs) and the new covenant as a arrangement that superceedes the old.

Glad you think the new covenant is current because you have been treating it, through how you do Heb 8, as something that won't happen until the millenium, which is not actually there as most people like you think.

Could you please grow up about doing your insulting?
Click to expand...
  • The new covenant is between God and Israel, just like scripture says.
  • The new covenant is NOT current.
  • The new testament is NOT identical to the new covenant.
  • The new testament CANNOT be in effect until the DEATH of the TESTATOR (something you continue to blindly ignore).
  • You are a dork.
  • If you don't like being called a dork, stop being one.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Right Divider said:
  • The new covenant is between God and Israel, just like scripture says.
  • The new covenant is NOT current.
  • The new testament is NOT identical to the new covenant.
  • The new testament CANNOT be in effect until the DEATH of the TESTATOR (something you continue to blindly ignore).
  • You are a dork.
  • If you don't like being called a dork, stop being one.
Click to expand...





It is between Christ and God, because Israel failed. Christ succeeded. that's what Dan 9 says. That's why Isaiah says 'I will make you (the Servant) a covenant for the nations.'

The new covenant could still be acted upon or anticipated before the death of Christ. God did not change 'theologies' until after the death of Christ actually happened. It was the plan from the foundation of the world, just like parents plan ahead for mishaps.

I already know the NT is not identical to the covenant, but it is a good name because it is all the documents about what he did and wanted from the beginning. The sacrificial death was intended from the beginning. The new covenant does not start some place later in the story.

I hope you get with a pastor about your attitude and grow up.
 
Right Divider

Right Divider

Body part
Interplanner said:
It is between Christ and God, because Israel failed.
Click to expand...
That is NOT what Jeremiah NOR Hebrews says. This is just another of the MANY cases where your made up fairy story must take precedence over scripture (in your feeble little mind).

Interplanner said:
Christ succeeded. that's what Dan 9 says. That's why Isaiah says 'I will make you (the Servant) a covenant for the nations.'
Click to expand...
Sure, just throw ANY old reference to a covenant in there. Nice work DingleBerry.

Interplanner said:
The new covenant could still be acted upon or anticipated before the death of Christ. God did not change 'theologies' until after the death of Christ actually happened. It was the plan from the foundation of the world, just like parents plan ahead for mishaps.
Click to expand...
You are a HOOT!

Anticipated, YES.... it's PROPHECY. "Acted upon".... DINGLEBERRY!!!!

Interplanner said:
I already know the NT is not identical to the covenant, but it is a good name because it is all the documents about what he did and wanted from the beginning. The sacrificial death was intended from the beginning. The new covenant does not start some place later in the story.
Click to expand...
God said I WILL MAKE.... it's not here yet no matter how twisted your fairy story gets.

Interplanner said:
I hope you get with a pastor about your attitude and grow up.
Click to expand...
I hope that you ditch that nonsense and agree with God and His Word.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top