Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Question for MADs (primarily)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Theology Club: Question for MADs (primarily)

    This is part of an email I received some time ago; wondering what you MADs in especial think of it.

    We were made partakers of their new covenant. In Ephesians 2,

    "11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
    12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
    13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
    14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
    15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
    16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
    17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
    18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
    19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;"
    We are no longer strangers from the covenants of promise. This includes the new covenant.

    We can't be partakers of Israel's passover Lamb without being partakers of the blood of the new covenant. In Hebrews 10 it says,

    "29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?"
    Notice,

    "... the blood of the covenant ..."
    Christ's blood is the blood of the new covenant. If we are partaker of the blood we are partakers of the new covenant. They cannot be separated. In Ephesians 1 Paul says,

    "7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;"
    Christ did not have two separate bloods. Christ has one blood and it is the blood of the covenant.We are partakers of the new covenant. God grafted the Gentiles into the good olive tree so that the Gentiles could be partakers of the covenants and blessings given to Israel.

    You can't say that Jesus has one blood for Peter's group and another separate blood for Paul's group. It's all the same blood. It is the blood of the covenant.

    The same goes for the Holy Spirit. God did not give Peter's group a Holy Spirit and then give Paul's group a separate Holy Spirit. There is only one Holy Spirit.

    To be partakers of the blood is to be partakers of the blood of the covenant.
    "There is one thing worse than going to Hell. That would be going to Hell and having it be a surprise."
    Terence Mc Lean

    [most will be very surprised]


    Everyone who has not believed the Gospel of grace is not saved, no matter what else they believe or do.
    By that measure, how many professing Christians are on their way to the Lake of Fire?

  • #2
    As a fork in a road originates in one source, as one blood resulted in two peoples - Jew and Gentile - it is the Same Blood, the same Spirit, but not the same Working; nor the same Promise.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by musterion View Post
      This is part of an email I received some time ago; wondering what you MADs in especial think of it.
      There are different aspects of in regard to the death of the Lord Jesus, and that death is "symbolized" by the word 'blood."

      For instance, one aspect of the death of the Lord Jesus is specifically in regard to the continual cleansing of Christians:
      "But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin" (1 Jn.1:7).

      This cleansing by His blood is an entirely different aspect of a blessing which flows from the Cross than the "blood" which redeems individual believers:
      "Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot" (1 Pet.1:18-19).

      In this verse the aspect of His death that is being spoken of is in regard to "redemption" and not the "cleansing."

      Christ's blood is the blood of the new covenant. If we are partaker of the blood we are partakers of the new covenant. They cannot be separated.
      What is being spoken of about the 'blood of the New Covenant" is in regard to the purpose of His death in ratifying the New Covenant promised to Israel at Jeremiah 31:31-34.

      Since we in the Body of Christ do not partake of that New Covenant promised to Israel then it is clear that aspect of His death has no revelance to us.

      The mistake in the article which you quoted is taking the meaning of the word "blood" literally. It should not be taken literally as it symbolizes the Lord Jesus death upon the Cross.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by musterion View Post
        This is part of an email I received some time ago; wondering what you MADs in especial think of it.
        well i agree, it was accurate commentary on parts of Ephesians. i didn't see much wrong if anything with the interpretation. Pau;s writings speak plainly

        i only read it once and wasn't analyzing or looking for a detail that was questionable, just to give my first impression inasmuch there is ONE Spirit and ONE shedding of blood -

        Colossians 1:12-13 KJV - Colossians 1:14 KJV -
        Last edited by patrick jane; August 25th, 2015, 04:56 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by musterion View Post
          This is part of an email I received some time ago; wondering what you MADs in especial think of it.

          Hi and how will THEY interpret Heb 8:8 ?

          Interpret Ezek 36 :23-38 which says what the New Covenant really means !!

          We were never a Covenant people when DIATHEKE / COVENANT can mean many things since it IS a Transliterated word and can also means , Agreement , Covenant , Will and Testament !!

          All New Covenant Theologians have mixed up Eph 2:11 and vers 12

          dan p

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by DAN P View Post
            Hi and how will THEY interpret Heb 8:8 ?

            Interpret Ezek 36 :23-38 which says what the New Covenant really means !!

            We were never a Covenant people when DIATHEKE / COVENANT can mean many things since it IS a Transliterated word and can also means , Agreement , Covenant , Will and Testament !!

            All New Covenant Theologians have mixed up Eph 2:11 and vers 12

            dan p
            Hebrews 3:14 KJV -

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by patrick jane View Post
              Hebrews 3:14 KJV -

              Hi , what do you think it means ?

              Two verbs here and "we hold " is controlled by the Subjective Mood , are " may , might , would , could , should " and these words INDICATE possible happening !!

              The other verb is in the Perfect Tense !!

              dan p

              Comment


              • #8
                It makes sense to me, on the surface.
                sigpic

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by DAN P View Post
                  Hi , what do you think it means ?

                  Two verbs here and "we hold " is controlled by the Subjective Mood , are " may , might , would , could , should " and these words INDICATE possible happening !!

                  The other verb is in the Perfect Tense !!

                  dan p
                  It appears you meant "Subjunctive, brother.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by DAN P View Post
                    Hi , what do you think it means ?

                    Two verbs here and "we hold " is controlled by the Subjective Mood , are " may , might , would , could , should " and these words INDICATE possible happening !!

                    The other verb is in the Perfect Tense !!

                    dan p

                    imo, it says we are partakers of Christ. with Christ, In Christ. it means we share; we are included in Christ's DBR. and UNBELIEF is the reason they could not enter into His rest.


                    we are partakers if we continue without faltering or wavering, as we first believed in God, to the end. lest we die in the wilderness -

                    Hebrews 3:18-19 KJV -
                    Last edited by patrick jane; August 26th, 2015, 06:12 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Danoh View Post
                      It appears you meant "Subjunctive, brother.

                      Hi , and I finally made a mistake ??

                      dan p

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by DAN P View Post
                        Hi , and I finally made a mistake ??

                        dan p
                        no, never. not you -

                        what do you think it means ?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by DAN P View Post
                          Hi , and I finally made a mistake ??

                          dan p
                          Luv ya anyway, fellow Acts 9:6er

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Danoh View Post
                            Luv ya anyway, fellow Acts 9:6er
                            i understand 9:6 but even at Acts 9:15-16 KJV - Ananias hadn't seen Paul yet. Acts 9:6 KJV - Christ tells Paul he will show him what he (Paul) must do -

                            Gentiles are mentioned in 9:15, but not yet to Paul. that's what i see, am i wrong. i also lean to 9:6

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by patrick jane View Post
                              i understand 9:6 but even at Acts 9:15-16 KJV - Ananias hadn't seen Paul yet. Acts 9:6 KJV - Christ tells Paul he will show him what he (Paul) must do -

                              Gentiles are mentioned in 9:15, but not yet to Paul. that's what i see, am i wrong. i also lean to 9:6
                              In Isaiah 8, we read:

                              20. To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

                              Centuries later, the Apostle Paul is not going to fit that, as his "word" was a Mystery.

                              Towards that problem, we read of such as Barnabas, and Ananias, and others as an important witness to Paul's unique calling among their own...

                              As "a devout man according to the Law" Acts 22:12, (meaning the Little Flock was still under the Law, to begin with; see also Acts 2:46; 3:1, etc.) Ananias, for example, was a witness Paul will refer to when speaking of his conversion and calling because, again; Paul's Apostleship was odd to begin with, as Israel already had the Twelve; one for each tribe, Matthew 19:28.

                              As to the other aspect of your question, note Paul's own words in Acts 26:

                              8. Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead?
                              9. I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth.
                              10. Which thing I also did in Jerusalem: and many of the saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I gave my voice against them.
                              11. And I punished them oft in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto strange cities.

                              Paul has basically just told you he had been un-savable under the terms of the gospel of the kingdom, Matt. 12:30-32.

                              Moving on, here in Acts 26, we read:

                              12. Whereupon as I went to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests,
                              13. At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me.
                              14. And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the
                              pricks.
                              15. And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.
                              16. But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the
                              which I will appear unto thee;
                              17. Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee,
                              18. To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are
                              sanctified by faith that is in me.


                              Note - though some on here will differ on this - that is The Mystery!

                              But that is another post (no problem though, as I only ignore that would be lord over others; what's his name).

                              Anyway Paul continues there...

                              19. Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision:
                              20. But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.

                              He is nearing the end of his Acts ministry. Its why he mentions that vast area in verse 20.

                              Hope that raises more questions than it answers, lol

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X