SHOULD THE CHURCH TODAY BE CALLED NEW TESTAMENT

[Clete]

Well, if you're going to lower the bar like that I can. Now then, I choose this bit of rubbish from the OP to pick on:



Here, Doug E. Doug puts a difference between New Testament, and New Covenant. This differentiation appears to be a keystone of his thesis. Unfortunately for Doug, such a distinction is a complete fiction, because when you look into the Hebrew and Greek, testament and covenant are literally the same word. The difference only exists in our English translations.

To prove this, I now present to you six examples of places where the Greek word διαθήκη, which Doug says is properly translated testament and not covenant, is used to mean... covenant. All the verses are quoted in parallel from the King James Bible and the Greek Textus Receptus on which it was based (emphasis added). I have chosen one verse from each book of the Pentateuch (shoutout to the moron who keeps falsely claiming I contradict Moses), and one from Jeremiah which is highly relevant to the topic-at-hand.

-----

Genesis 6:18 καὶ στήσω τὴν διαθήκην μου πρὸς σέ εἰσελεύσῃ δὲ εἰς τὴν κιβωτόν σὺ καὶ οἱ υἱοί σου καὶ ἡ γυνή σου καὶ αἱ γυναῗκες τῶν υἱῶν σου μετὰ σοῦ

Genesis 6:18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.

-----

Exodus 6:5 καὶ ἐγὼ εἰσήκουσα τὸν στεναγμὸν τῶν υἱῶν Ισραηλ ὃν οἱ Αἰγύπτιοι καταδουλοῦνται αὐτούς καὶ ἐμνήσθην τῆς διαθήκης ὑμῶν

Exodus 6:5 And I have also heard the groaning of the children of Israel, whom the Egyptians keep in bondage; and I have remembered my covenant.

-----

Leviticus 26:25 καὶ ἐπάξω ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς μάχαιραν ἐκδικοῦσαν δίκην διαθήκης καὶ καταφεύξεσθε εἰς τὰς πόλεις ὑμῶν καὶ ἐξαποστελῶ θάνατον εἰς ὑμᾶς καὶ παραδοθήσεσθε εἰς χεῗρας ἐχθρῶν

Leviticus 26:25 And I will bring a sword upon you, that shall avenge the quarrel of my covenant: and when ye are gathered together within your cities, I will send the pestilence among you; and ye shall be delivered into the hand of the enemy.

-----

Numbers 25:13 καὶ ἔσται αὐτῷ καὶ τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ μετ᾽ αὐτὸν διαθήκη ἱερατείας αἰωνία ἀνθ᾽ ὧν ἐζήλωσεν τῷ θεῷ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐξιλάσατο περὶ τῶν υἱῶν Ισραηλ

Numbers 25:13 And he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, and made an atonement for the children of Israel.

-----

Deuteronomy 4:13 καὶ ἀνήγγειλεν ὑμῗν τὴν διαθήκην αὐτοῦ ἣν ἐνετείλατο ὑμῗν ποιεῗν τὰ δέκα ῥήματα καὶ ἔγραψεν αὐτὰ ἐπὶ δύο πλάκας λιθίνας

Deuteronomy 4:13 And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.

-----

Jeremiah 31:31 ἰδοὺ ἡμέραι ἔρχονται φησὶν κύριος καὶ διαθήσομαι τῷ οἴκῳ Ισραηλ καὶ τῷ οἴκῳ Ιουδα διαθήκην καινήν

Jeremiah 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

-----

I believe that should also answer the question @DAN P; posed earlier in this thread about this particular Greek word.

Jarrod

So why didn't you just post this in the first place?

Then people, like me, could have responded to the argument and had a modicum of respect for you and your ability to engage in substantive discourse with people of good conscience with which you disagree. As it is, you've destroyed your own reputation and will have to work to regain even a slightest bit of respect.

Foolish!



As for your point about the words covenant and testament, I don't disagree with you except that I think you picked the most inconsequential point you could have found. It is, however, far better than the stupidity that you started with on this thread.

I don't know what exactly he meant when he made this distinction but I barely noticed it when I read through his post because I know that Mid-Acts Dispensationalism isn't based on that distinction. If anything it's the reverse and such a distinction is based on Mid-Acts Dispensationalism. Again, it depends on just what he means but I didn't take it to be his primary premise. My suspicion is that his intent was to make a distinction away from what is called "Covenant Theology" but that's only a guess.

Regardless, your point, while well taken, does nothing to Mid-Acts Dispensationalism itself. At best, it points out a poor choice or words on Doug's part, but nothing more.

Clete

 

[Wick Stick]

Regardless, your point, while well taken, does nothing to Mid-Acts Dispensationalism itself.

Well, yeah. Taking apart an entire theological system would take a bit more time than a single post, which was why I didn't even go there.

But you said, "prove even one point wrong," and that I can do in a single post.

 

[DAN P]

Well, if you're going to lower the bar like that I can. Now then, I choose this bit of rubbish from the OP to pick on:



Here, Doug E. Doug puts a difference between New Testament, and New Covenant. This differentiation appears to be a keystone of his thesis. Unfortunately for Doug, such a distinction is a complete fiction, because when you look into the Hebrew and Greek, testament and covenant are literally the same word. The difference only exists in our English translations.

To prove this, I now present to you six examples of places where the Greek word διαθήκη, which Doug says is properly translated testament and not covenant, is used to mean... covenant. All the verses are quoted in parallel from the King James Bible and the Greek Textus Receptus on which it was based (emphasis added). I have chosen one verse from each book of the Pentateuch (shoutout to the moron who keeps falsely claiming I contradict Moses), and one from Jeremiah which is highly relevant to the topic-at-hand.

-----

Genesis 6:18 καὶ στήσω τὴν διαθήκην μου πρὸς σέ εἰσελεύσῃ δὲ εἰς τὴν κιβωτόν σὺ καὶ οἱ υἱοί σου καὶ ἡ γυνή σου καὶ αἱ γυναῗκες τῶν υἱῶν σου μετὰ σοῦ

Genesis 6:18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.

-----

Exodus 6:5 καὶ ἐγὼ εἰσήκουσα τὸν στεναγμὸν τῶν υἱῶν Ισραηλ ὃν οἱ Αἰγύπτιοι καταδουλοῦνται αὐτούς καὶ ἐμνήσθην τῆς διαθήκης ὑμῶν

Exodus 6:5 And I have also heard the groaning of the children of Israel, whom the Egyptians keep in bondage; and I have remembered my covenant.

-----

Leviticus 26:25 καὶ ἐπάξω ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς μάχαιραν ἐκδικοῦσαν δίκην διαθήκης καὶ καταφεύξεσθε εἰς τὰς πόλεις ὑμῶν καὶ ἐξαποστελῶ θάνατον εἰς ὑμᾶς καὶ παραδοθήσεσθε εἰς χεῗρας ἐχθρῶν

Leviticus 26:25 And I will bring a sword upon you, that shall avenge the quarrel of my covenant: and when ye are gathered together within your cities, I will send the pestilence among you; and ye shall be delivered into the hand of the enemy.

-----

Numbers 25:13 καὶ ἔσται αὐτῷ καὶ τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ μετ᾽ αὐτὸν διαθήκη ἱερατείας αἰωνία ἀνθ᾽ ὧν ἐζήλωσεν τῷ θεῷ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐξιλάσατο περὶ τῶν υἱῶν Ισραηλ

Numbers 25:13 And he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, and made an atonement for the children of Israel.

-----

Deuteronomy 4:13 καὶ ἀνήγγειλεν ὑμῗν τὴν διαθήκην αὐτοῦ ἣν ἐνετείλατο ὑμῗν ποιεῗν τὰ δέκα ῥήματα καὶ ἔγραψεν αὐτὰ ἐπὶ δύο πλάκας λιθίνας

Deuteronomy 4:13 And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.

-----

Jeremiah 31:31 ἰδοὺ ἡμέραι ἔρχονται φησὶν κύριος καὶ διαθήσομαι τῷ οἴκῳ Ισραηλ καὶ τῷ οἴκῳ Ιουδα διαθήκην καινήν

Jeremiah 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

-----

I believe that should also answer the question @DAN P; posed earlier in this thread about this particular Greek word.

Jarrod

Hi and seem to me when checking Greek words in STRONG'S or VINE;S all Greek words have MORE than one meaning !

DIATHEKE , can be translated by the following English words :: COVENANT , COMPACT , WILL or ARRANGEMENT and the same goes for HEBREW words !!

A;so , the Greek word EKKELESIA does not mean church , and means ASSEMBLY !!

dan p

 

[DougE]

Well, if you're going to lower the bar like that I can. Now then, I choose this bit of rubbish from the OP to pick on:



Here, Doug E. Doug puts a difference between New Testament, and New Covenant. This differentiation appears to be a keystone of his thesis. Unfortunately for Doug, such a distinction is a complete fiction, because when you look into the Hebrew and Greek, testament and covenant are literally the same word. The difference only exists in our English translations.

To prove this, I now present to you six examples of places where the Greek word διαθήκη, which Doug says is properly translated testament and not covenant, is used to mean... covenant. All the verses are quoted in parallel from the King James Bible and the Greek Textus Receptus on which it was based (emphasis added). I have chosen one verse from each book of the Pentateuch (shoutout to the moron who keeps falsely claiming I contradict Moses), and one from Jeremiah which is highly relevant to the topic-at-hand.

-----

Genesis 6:18 καὶ στήσω τὴν διαθήκην μου πρὸς σέ εἰσελεύσῃ δὲ εἰς τὴν κιβωτόν σὺ καὶ οἱ υἱοί σου καὶ ἡ γυνή σου καὶ αἱ γυναῗκες τῶν υἱῶν σου μετὰ σοῦ

Genesis 6:18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.

-----

Exodus 6:5 καὶ ἐγὼ εἰσήκουσα τὸν στεναγμὸν τῶν υἱῶν Ισραηλ ὃν οἱ Αἰγύπτιοι καταδουλοῦνται αὐτούς καὶ ἐμνήσθην τῆς διαθήκης ὑμῶν

Exodus 6:5 And I have also heard the groaning of the children of Israel, whom the Egyptians keep in bondage; and I have remembered my covenant.

-----

Leviticus 26:25 καὶ ἐπάξω ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς μάχαιραν ἐκδικοῦσαν δίκην διαθήκης καὶ καταφεύξεσθε εἰς τὰς πόλεις ὑμῶν καὶ ἐξαποστελῶ θάνατον εἰς ὑμᾶς καὶ παραδοθήσεσθε εἰς χεῗρας ἐχθρῶν

Leviticus 26:25 And I will bring a sword upon you, that shall avenge the quarrel of my covenant: and when ye are gathered together within your cities, I will send the pestilence among you; and ye shall be delivered into the hand of the enemy.

-----

Numbers 25:13 καὶ ἔσται αὐτῷ καὶ τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ μετ᾽ αὐτὸν διαθήκη ἱερατείας αἰωνία ἀνθ᾽ ὧν ἐζήλωσεν τῷ θεῷ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐξιλάσατο περὶ τῶν υἱῶν Ισραηλ

Numbers 25:13 And he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, and made an atonement for the children of Israel.

-----

Deuteronomy 4:13 καὶ ἀνήγγειλεν ὑμῗν τὴν διαθήκην αὐτοῦ ἣν ἐνετείλατο ὑμῗν ποιεῗν τὰ δέκα ῥήματα καὶ ἔγραψεν αὐτὰ ἐπὶ δύο πλάκας λιθίνας

Deuteronomy 4:13 And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.

-----

Jeremiah 31:31 ἰδοὺ ἡμέραι ἔρχονται φησὶν κύριος καὶ διαθήσομαι τῷ οἴκῳ Ισραηλ καὶ τῷ οἴκῳ Ιουδα διαθήκην καινήν

Jeremiah 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

-----

I believe that should also answer the question @DAN P; posed earlier in this thread about this particular Greek word.

Jarrod

Talking about the Greek word for this or that does not change the fact that Hebrews 9:16 says a testament requires the death of the testator which is not the case for a covenant

Also, the new covenant (Ezekiel 36:24-28) has not yet been fulfilled the new testament has by Christ's death.

 

[Clete]

Well, yeah. Taking apart an entire theological system would take a bit more time than a single post, which was why I didn't even go there.

Who said anything about taking the entire theological system apart?

No one! Well, besides you that is.

But you said, "prove even one point wrong," and that I can do in a single post.

The problem is that it's Mid-Acts Dispensationalism that you called silly and the one point you choose to make an argument against does NOTHING to Mid-Acts Dispensationalism whatseover!

And even the argument you make against that single point doesn't prove anything because you are presuming a meaning that DougE almost certainly does not intend. AT BEST you've pointed out a clarification that he needs to make but you've not proven his post wrong and, as I said, you've not even begun to touch Mid-Acts Dispensationalism, which, since its so "silly" ought to be easy! But then, nothing is easy for the lazy.

Clete

 

[Clete]

Hi and seem to me when checking Greek words in STRONG'S or VINE;S all Greek words have MORE than one meaning !

DIATHEKE , can be translated by the following English words :: COVENANT , COMPACT , WILL or ARRANGEMENT and the same goes for HEBREW words !!

A;so , the Greek word EKKELESIA does not mean church , and means ASSEMBLY !!

dan p

This is a rather good point actually. People often make the mistake of assuming that because one Hebrew or Greek word can be translated into two (or more) English words that it would be a correct translation if the English words were interchanged. This is not so. Words in any language have a range of meanings and it is the context that determines what the actual meaning is. When translating, the new language will often have very different words for the various meaning of the single word in the original.

So, for example, take Hebrew word "tsĕdaqah". It means "righteousness" primarily but it can also mean "justice" and the King James even translates it as "moderately" in Joel 2:23 (and rightly so).

This does not mean that, in English, the words "Righteousness", "Justice" and "Moderately" are all synonymous with eachother and that Joel 2:23 could rightly have been translated.
.

Joel 2:23 Be glad then, ye children of Zion, and rejoice in the LORD your God: for he hath given you the former rain righteously, and he will cause to come down for you the rain, the former rain, and the latter rain in the first month.​

Such a translation in the English would be weird and confusing and simply wrong because while the meaning of the original word has an overlapping meaning that works in this context, the English language does not.


Having said all of that, a clear defining of terms would be helpful.
Just what exactly did you mean when you said...

Paul is a minister of the....new testament, not the new covenant.

What exactly do you see the "New Covenant" to be and how is it distinct from the New Testament?

My simply asking the question in those terms helps me to understand the distinction intuitively but I'd like to get it from you and see if my intuitition about what you mean is in the right ball park. (I'm pretty sure now that you were not making reference to "Covenant Theology", at least not directly.)

Clete

 

[DAN P]

This is a rather good point actually. People often make the mistake of assuming that because one Hebrew or Greek word can be translated into two (or more) English words that it would be a correct translation if the English words were interchanged. This is not so. Words in any language have a range of meanings and it is the context that determines what the actual meaning is. When translating, the new language will often have very different words for the various meaning of the single word in the original.

So, for example, take Hebrew word "tsĕdaqah". It means "righteousness" primarily but it can also mean "justice" and the King James even translates it as "moderately" in Joel 2:23 (and rightly so).

This does not mean that, in English, the words "Righteousness", "Justice" and "Moderately" are all synonymous with eachother and that Joel 2:23 could rightly have been translated.
.

Joel 2:23 Be glad then, ye children of Zion, and rejoice in the LORD your God: for he hath given you the former rain righteously, and he will cause to come down for you the rain, the former rain, and the latter rain in the first month.​

Such a translation in the English would be weird and confusing and simply wrong because while the meaning of the original word has an overlapping meaning that works in this context, the English language does not.


Having said all of that, a clear defining of terms would be helpful.
Just what exactly did you mean when you said...



What exactly do you see the "New Covenant" to be and how is it distinct from the New Testament?

My simply asking the question in those terms helps me to understand the distinction intuitively but I'd like to get it from you and see if my intuitition about what you mean is in the right ball park. (I'm pretty sure now that you were not making reference to "Covenant Theology", at least not directly.)

Clete

Hi and the NEW COVENANT is written in EZK 36:24-27 Explains it all !!

The NEW COVENANT will be in operation after Rom 11:25 , verse 26 !!

The Greek word DIATHEKE is also used in 1 Cor 11:25 where the SIN OF DEATH is written !!

dan p

 

[Clete]

Hi and the NEW COVENANT is written in EZK 36:24-27 Explains it all !!

The NEW COVENANT will be in operation after Rom 11:25 , verse 26 !!

The Greek word DIATHEKE is also used in 1 Cor 11:25 where the SIN OF DEATH is written !!

dan p

Okay, well, that is sufficient to tell me that I was on the right track intuitively but it really only answers half the question which will leave those who tend toward intellectual laziness, like Wick Stick, confused as to your meaning and intent.

What exactly do you see the "New Covenant" to be and how is it distinct from the New Testament?

 

[Wick Stick]

Talking about the Greek word for this or that does not change the fact that Hebrews 9:16 says a testament requires the death of the testator which is not the case for a covenant

Do you ever read the verses you quote in context? You really ought to. Here's that passage:

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. Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry. And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. Hebrews 9:16-22

Reading this, do you not see how the Mosaic Covenant is referred to right here as a testament? I think you just managed to prove my point better than I did. Thanks, I guess?

Jarrod

 

[DougE]

Do you ever read the verses you quote in context? You really ought to. Here's that passage:

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. Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry. And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. Hebrews 9:16-22

Reading this, do you not see how the Mosaic Covenant is referred to right here as a testament? I think you just managed to prove my point better than I did. Thanks, I guess?

Jarrod

I will grant you that there is a correlation between a testament and a covenant, but the point I was making was the testament was fulfilled by the death of Christ as testator according to Hebrews 9:15. Christ also shed his blood for the new testament and Hebrews 9 speaks of the blood.

It is interesting that in Hebrews he is mediator which is a go between between two parties and a covenant would be an agreement between two parties....I would have to study this but wasn't some of the covenants confirmed by a sacrifice between God and the other party?

The other point was the new covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34 Ezekiel 36:24-28) has not yet been fulfilled unto Israel yet so saying Christ fulfilled the covenant would be technically inaccurate.

---

 

[Clete]

I will grant you that there is a correlation between a testament and a covenant, but the point I was making was the testament was fulfilled by the death of Christ as testator according to Hebrews 9:15. Christ also shed his blood for the new testament and Hebrews 9 speaks of the blood.

It is interesting that in Hebrews he is mediator which is a go between between two parties and a covenant would be an agreement between two parties....I would have to study this but wasn't some of the covenants confirmed by a sacrifice between God and the other party?

The other point was the new covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34 Ezekiel 36:24-28) has not yet been fulfilled unto Israel yet so saying Christ fulfilled the covenant would be technically inaccurate.

---

What you guys are calling a "testament" is what we today would call a "will", as in a "last will and testament". You'd have to go to law school to find anyone picking nits over the meaning of something so common and easy to understand.

As for covenants being between two parties, it would be good to remember that Abraham is the father of both those saved under law and those saved apart from the law (Romans 4:1-25). The reason this is so is because God had two covenants with Abraham, the first being initiated in Genesis 15 in which Abraham (Abram at the time) had no requirement because he wasn't even conscious when God passed between the cut sacrifices. The second being that of circumcision which came in Genesis 17 in which, of course, there was the requirement of being circumcised and then later the requirement to following the Law of Moses, of which circumcision is a symbol. Thus Abraham is the father of the whole household of faith which includes two groups under two covenants, those saved by works (James 2:21) and those saved apart from works (Romans 4:5), aka the circumcision and the uncircumcision (Galatians 2:7), aka Israel and the Gentiles.

The division of these two groups is the primary division between what is commonly called the Old and the New Testament. It is not the same as the difference between the Old Covenant vs the New Covenant which Jesus talked about in the gospels. That New Covenant was still with Israel and was still under and within the context of Israek, circumcision and the Law of Moses. It wasn't until God cut off the circumcision (i.e. Israel) for unbelief that the world was left with a covenant of salvation by faith apart from works, the Apostle Paul being the first convert under it since Genesis 17. (I Timothy 1:16)

Clete

 

[God's Truth]

What you guys are calling a "testament" is what we today would call a "will", as in a "last will and testament". You'd have to go to law school to find anyone picking nits over the meaning of something so common and easy to understand.

As for covenants being between two parties, it would be good to remember that Abraham is the father of both those saved under law and those saved apart from the law (Romans 4:1-25). The reason this is so is because God had two covenants with Abraham, the first being initiated in Genesis 15 in which Abraham (Abram at the time) had no requirement because he wasn't even conscious when God passed between the cut sacrifices. The second being that of circumcision which came in Genesis 17 in which, of course, there was the requirement of being circumcised and then later the requirement to following the Law of Moses, of which circumcision is a symbol. Thus Abraham is the father of the whole household of faith which includes two groups under two covenants, those saved by works (James 2:21) and those saved apart from works (Romans 4:5), aka the circumcision and the uncircumcision (Galatians 2:7), aka Israel and the Gentiles.

The division of these two groups is the primary division between what is commonly called the Old and the New Testament. It is not the same as the difference between the Old Covenant vs the New Covenant which Jesus talked about in the gospels. That New Covenant was still with Israel and was still under and within the context of Israek, circumcision and the Law of Moses. It wasn't until God cut off the circumcision (i.e. Israel) for unbelief that the world was left with a covenant of salvation by faith apart from works, the Apostle Paul being the first convert under it since Genesis 17. (I Timothy 1:16)

Clete

While Jesus had his earthly ministry, he was speaking his Last Will and Testament.

When Jesus died, his Last Will and Testament went into force.

Since Jesus is God and is still alive, it is also a Covenant.


When Jesus walked the earth he let us know HOW to be an HEIR of his Last Will and Testament.

He told how to be an heir, and he explained the conditions of the inheritance, and he explained what the inheritance is.


It is a Last Will and Testament because Jesus the Man;

and it is a Covenant because Jesus is God.


Paul could not ever come and give another testament or covenant.

There is only ONE and Paul was a minister of it.

 

[God's Truth]

I will grant you that there is a correlation between a testament and a covenant, but the point I was making was the testament was fulfilled by the death of Christ as testator according to Hebrews 9:15. Christ also shed his blood for the new testament and Hebrews 9 speaks of the blood.

It is interesting that in Hebrews he is mediator which is a go between between two parties and a covenant would be an agreement between two parties....I would have to study this but wasn't some of the covenants confirmed by a sacrifice between God and the other party?

The other point was the new covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34 Ezekiel 36:24-28) has not yet been fulfilled unto Israel yet so saying Christ fulfilled the covenant would be technically inaccurate.

---

There is only one Testament, which is the one New Covenant.

Everyone is saved the same way, Jews and Gentiles.

Anyone can be an heir according to what Jesus says how to be an heir...humble yourself as a child is about resigning yourself to do whatever Jesus says to do...believing in Jesus...repenting of your sins and have a forgiving heart.

That is for THE WORLD, WHOMEVER, ALL, EVERYONE.


John 1:6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. 10He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name. 13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.


John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's only begotten Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."

John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on them.

 

[Clete]

While Jesus had his earthly ministry, he was speaking his Last Will and Testament.

When Jesus died, his Last Will and Testament went into force.

Since Jesus is God and is still alive, it is also a Covenant.


When Jesus walked the earth he let us know HOW to be an HEIR of his Last Will and Testament.

He told how to be an heir, and he explained the conditions of the inheritance, and he explained what the inheritance is.


It is a Last Will and Testament because Jesus the Man;

and it is a Covenant because Jesus is God.


Paul could not ever come and give another testament or covenant.

There is only ONE and Paul was a minister of it.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Unless your God....

Galatians 2^:7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter ⁸ (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), ⁹ and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

But then, by all means, don't allow the bible to have anything do to with your doctrine!

 

[God's Truth]

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Unless your God....

Galatians 2^:7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter ⁸ (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), ⁹ and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

But then, by all means, don't allow the bible to have anything do to with your doctrine!

Those scriptures PROVE YOU WRONG.

Do you know who Barnabas is?