Yes siree, RD....Here is a pic of me, when Imafixinta learn me sum eggeecashun from this scholar IP:
Last edited:
ECT What's New (Covenant)?
- Thread starter Interplanner
- Start date
Yes siree, RD....Here is a pic of me, when Imafixinta learn me sum eggeecashun from this scholar IP:
Interplanner
Well-known member
Nonsense, Tam has not crosschecked all the other references in the NT to the new covenant, like Mt 26, I Cor 9, 2 Cor 3. Even in Hebrews it is in effect now and has rreplaced the previous and has nothing to do with the land, it has everything to do with 12:22+.
I can't find the end of our Rom 11 discussion, but the election things is a huge mistake. You only need to go back to v7 to see that it was the remnant and not a blanket for Israel. Otherwise v7 is meaningless.
We also see in v14 that in his effort to get Israel to follow the mission to the nations, he knew he would only persuade some to believe. Never all or nothing, that is fantasy.
Right Divider
Body part
Is this passage not in the Bible that you have?
Heb 8:7-13 (AKJV/PCE)
(8:7) For if that first [covenant] had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. (8:8) For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: (8:9) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. (8:10) For this [is] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: (8:11) And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. (8:12) For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. (8:13) In that he saith, A new [covenant], he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old [is] ready to vanish away.
Interplanner
Well-known member
You have to know who "them" is before you can say you are preaching something that conflicts with them! We as Christian gospel preachers are not Judaizers. We are told by Paul in Acts 26, that with all the OT resources at hand, he would not preach beyond the suffering and preaching about Christ as light to the nations. Nothing about Israel in its land or some other sort of restored old covenant that would have cooled off his pals (?) in Judaism.
NEVER base a doctrine on the Rev that is not crystal clear elsewhere. Forget it. Proof texting is bad; proof-texting from the Rev is insanity.
Right Divider
Body part
DUH! The dispensation of the grace of God is not about Israel.... but what came BEFORE was.... and what will come LATER is.
It's not a "proof text", it's an important Bible FACT.
Why don't you like facts?
In the NEW Jerusalem on the NEW earth.... the NAMES on the GATES of the CITY are the NAMES of the TWELVE TRIBES of ISRAEL.
What is your feeble explanation of that?
Now, I recognize you, scholar!!! You are that great educating scholar, Elmer Fudd!!!
"Twy" "repwaced!"""
Remember, fellow dispensational proponents-focus on the mission, as details do not matter, and the days of literalism are over!!!
His explanation, RD: The days of literalism are over!!!
Right Divider
Body part
:french:
Interplanner
Well-known member
"But what came before was [about Israel]"; sorry that's where you leave the NT with your D'ist pals. It's not there. In fact, its the issue vs Judaism, without which there is no issue.
this is why I ask you guys every week: so...what was the conflict between the apostles and Judaism? I have heard crickets ever since. Because you are in league with Judaism; D'ism is neo-Judaism.
It is why the believers in hebrews were persecuted and needed to persist. Their ch 12:22 Jerusalem conflicted totally with what Judaizers thought was supposed to be there.
While I did not get to pursue it as far as I would have liked in grad school seminary, the Essenes also had a 'Jerusalem' that they believed was pure and believed that the existing was corrupt. They had the pure one operating over at Qumran, etc. The apostles had a similar disruptive belief but, of course, were not Essene. Judaism throughout the region, persecuted the christians because they were the more powerful departure from 'temple Judaism.' Acts 26:9, 26:2, 25:19, 24:14 (it is the Way but they call it a sect), 18:6.
re the new jerusalem image:
IT IS AN IMAGE TO EVOKE OR SUGGEST. There are not going to be people there who are 'gates' or 'walls' or 'foundations stones.' That's the mistake documented in the archeology tour of Israel at Pureflix, where some guy thinks he has found the granite blocks called Salvation and Praise that are the wall. He found them in the 1950s and still thinks something will happen there--instead of getting to know Jesus Christ the Temple.
Rev makes clear--in a comment that distinguishes between corporeality now and then--that 'there was no temple [AS WE KNOW THEM] there in the NHNE, because Christ was the temple.
Prepare to have your mind altered!
Interplanner
Well-known member
You're not clear at all. try again. The verse is a point blank evidence that he already knew not all of them would ever believe even though there were great advantages to the mission of the Gospel if they would. There is nothing else it is trying to say.
The NT NEVER says all of Israel is one or the other, about belief or disbelief. It never treats the thing as a race. It has no blanket statement for the future of the race. This is a total and necessary departure from the replacement theology of Judaism, which is totally race-based.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Yes sir, IP is spouting sheer Breenism.
Interplanner
Well-known member
RD,
at the time of your fav Rev text here, there are other Israels to consider than the race. There's #2 in Rom 9, and there's the Israel of God in Gal 6 and there's the Hebrews in Hebrews. None of which are the race.
Right Divider
Body part
Utter nonsense on your part. The 12 apostles for the 12 tribes and the ONE apostle for the ONE body did what God told them to based on the instructions that he gave them. The fact that you do not understand it is clear.
God separated Israel for His own purposes on the earth. That has not changed, except for the current BREAK in which God is creating the one new man.
Who cares what Judaizer thought?
Your "education" has led you off into fairy tale land.
You just will NOT believe the Bible.... that's sad.
There are still twelve gates with the names of the TWELVE TRIBES OF ISRAEL. Why?
Why do you refuse to understand Isaiah 60 with Rev 21?
Get with God's programs... all of them!
Right Divider
Body part
:rotfl:
Let's just consider what the Bible ACTUALLY says. Instead of your phony "Israel" redefinition.
Rev 21:12-14 (AKJV/PCE)
(21:12) And had a wall great and high, [and] had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are [the names] of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel: (21:13) On the east three gates; on the north three gates; on the south three gates; and on the west three gates. (21:14) And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
And why does Paul get snubbed?
Interplanner
Well-known member
snubbed? Believed.
There's Israel 1 and 2 in Rom 9:6.
There's the Israel of God in Gal 6 that 'follows the rule of the new creation' which is key to knowing what a NHNE means.
There's the 'Hebrews' of Hebrews which were the ones that did not receive what was promised until Christ and now have everything, and joyfully anticipate the reality of Heb 12:22+ which does not have anything to do with the land or the old covenant.
What's to miss?
There's Israel 1 and 2 in Rom 9:6.
There's the Israel of God in Gal 6 that 'follows the rule of the new creation' which is key to knowing what a NHNE means.
There's the 'Hebrews' of Hebrews which were the ones that did not receive what was promised until Christ and now have everything, and joyfully anticipate the reality of Heb 12:22+ which does not have anything to do with the land or the old covenant.
What's to miss?
Right Divider
Body part
Paul's name is missing from the TWELVE foundations of the new Jerusalem, but the TWELVE apostles of the Lamb are there. Why is Paul missing?
P.S. :mock: "Israel 1 and 2"
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
This is the main difference between the old (weak in the flesh) and the new (empowered to keep it). Same law. The only thing that changed was the priesthood, to allow all tribes to be kings and priests.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Classic example of IP abandoning an old thread but yet he has opened up 4-5 new ones with the same basic topic.
Poor forum etiquette.
Right Divider
Body part
That fits perfectly with his poor thinking and doctrine.