Did God put Israel's covenant on hold?

[Idolater]

Why would God simply 'walk away from' the then 1500-year-old institution of the office of a bishop (cf. 1 Tim 3:1)? 1500 years straight without a hiccup (on the fixed institution, not to say there weren't many disputes along the way), but then God suddenly abandons this institution, established by the Apostles themselves? We have that recorded in the Bible. This requires something like a prophet, for God to turn away from His own institution, but there was no prophet, there was just Martin Luther. Do you think that he or John Calvin were prophets, such that you are 100% that God has in fact relegated His own established teaching office, to the dustbin? The trashcan? The dump?

And on another topic, how does an "everlasting covenant" (Heb13:20), get put on hold? Nothing everlasting gets paused. That is pure fiction, and syntactically false as well.

 

[JudgeRightly]

And on another topic, how does an "everlasting covenant" (Heb13:20), get put on hold? Nothing everlasting gets paused. That is pure fiction, and syntactically false as well.

God Himself tells us how an everlasting covenant gets put on hold.

The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it,if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it.And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it,if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it. - Jeremiah 18:7-10 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah18:7-10&version=NKJV

 

[Idolater]

God Himself tells us how an everlasting covenant gets put on hold.

The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it,if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it.And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it,if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it. - Jeremiah 18:7-10 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah18:7-10&version=NKJV

So where in the Bible is the everlasting covenant of Hebrews 13:20 put on hold.

 

[JudgeRightly]

So where in the Bible is the everlasting covenant of Hebrews 13:20 put on hold.

At Paul's conversion, in Acts 9.

 

[Idolater]

At Paul's conversion, in Acts 9.

Where else? Because I've read the whole chapter. I don't detect the slightest mention of an everlasting covenant being put on hold, let alone such a thing being said explicitly and clearly and plainly in Acts 9.

 

[Right Divider]

Where else? Because I've read the whole chapter. I don't detect the slightest mention of an everlasting covenant being put on hold, let alone such a thing being said explicitly and clearly and plainly in Acts 9.

Your blindness does not let you see the truth.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Where else? Because I've read the whole chapter.

Read Acts. Yes, the whole book. Note the three Ananiases (the only three Ananiases in scripture). They are a good indicator of the state of Israel.

The first shows the ungratefulness of Israel, as their wait on Christ's return grows longer.

The second shows the transfer of attention from Israel to Paul and the gentiles, where unbelieving Israel is cut off for their unbelief.

The third shows Israel in utter rebellion against God.

I don't detect the slightest mention of an everlasting covenant being put on hold,

That's because it's not mentioned directly.

But that IS where it occurred.

Don't use an appeal to incredulity as your excuse for not recognizing truth.

let alone such a thing being said explicitly and clearly and plainly in Acts 9.

You asked where it happened. That's where it happened, but that doesn't mean it's stated explicitly by God, "I'm putting my covenant with Israel on hold at this exact moment in time and this exact point in scripture."

Don't move the goalposts because you're blind and cannot see.

 

[Clete]

Where else? Because I've read the whole chapter. I don't detect the slightest mention of an everlasting covenant being put on hold, let alone such a thing being said explicitly and clearly and plainly in Acts 9.

Acts 9 (i.e. the conversion of Paul) is merely when it happened.

Read Jeremiah 18:1-10 then read Romans 9-11. The latter is simply the former being applied to Israel.

Israel's being cut off is the only reason Paul's ministry exists in the first place. Otherwise, there is no need for him at all. There's nothing he did that one or more of the twelve apostles couldn't have done. But their ministry was to Israel, not the Gentiles, and so when Israel's covenanent was put into abeyance and God turned instead to the Gentiles, He needed an apostle to the Gentiles, thus Paul's conversion (Acts 9) and the removal of "unclean" status of Gentiles (Acts 10). For the cutting off of Israel is our being grafted in and the casting away of Israel is the reconciliation of the world! (Romans 11).

Clete

 

[Idolater]

You all claim that the "everlasting covenant" that Christ dedicated with His own blood, was "put on hold", even though you confess that such a momentous thing is never explicit in Scripture.

 

[Right Divider]

You all claim that the "everlasting covenant" that Christ dedicated with His own blood, was "put on hold", even though you confess that such a momentous thing is never explicit in Scripture.

There are many important and true Bible doctrines that are "never explicit in Scripture".
Example: trinity.

 

[Idolater]

There are many important and true Bible doctrines that are "never explicit in Scripture".
Example: trinity.

The Trinity has been taught explicitly by the Apostles for as far back as we can see in history (the Apostles' Creed, Nicene Creed e.g.). That the "everlasting covenant" was "put on hold", not so much. Specifically, we have zero record of that teaching until like the 1800s. It is not Apostolic.

 

[Right Divider]

The Trinity has been taught explicitly by the Apostles for as far back as we can see in history (the Apostles' Creed, Nicene Creed e.g.).

And yet it is NOT explicitly in scripture.

That the "everlasting covenant" was "put on hold", not so much. Specifically, we have zero record of that teaching until like the 1800s.

Nonsense. It's in the Bible.

It is not Apostolic.

You don't seem to know the apostle Paul.

 

[Idolater]

And yet it is NOT explicitly in scripture.

Grasping at straws.

Nonsense. It's in the Bible.

And yet not explicitly so, and for such a big change! To be nowhere found, where the "everlasting covenant" is "put on hold". Dispensationalist dreaming.

You don't seem to know the apostle Paul.

You don't seem to know any of the Apostles, let alone Paul, who wrote some of the most Catholic words that the Scripture contains.

Did you know that he consecrated bishops? Where are Paul's bishops today? Where is that lineage? You just think they evaporated.

 

[Right Divider]

Grasping at straws.

Wrong.

And yet not explicitly so, and for such a big change!

It's all through Paul's epistles. It's not hard to see unless you allow your blindness to continue.

To be nowhere found, where the "everlasting covenant" is "put on hold". Dispensationalist dreaming.

No dreaming, just believing what scripture says.

You don't seem to know any of the Apostles, let alone Paul, who wrote some of the most Catholic words that the Scripture contains.

Your confusion is immense. I understand that different apostles are given different missions. Paul's mission was NOT the same as the TWELVE apostles that will sit on TWELVE thrones judging the TWELVE tribes of ISRAEL.

Did you know that he consecrated bishops? Where are Paul's bishops today? Where is that lineage? You just think they evaporated.

There was never a "pope" and yet you want to talk about Paul's doctrines. Get serious.

 

[Idolater]

Wrong.

It's all through Paul's epistles. It's not hard to see unless you allow your blindness to continue.

Or, it's not there at all, and you're seeing ghosts.

No dreaming, just believing what scripture says.

You don't believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, in spite of His own words, and many of Paul's words which are consistent with His Real Presence, such as 1st Corinthians 11:29, "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body."

Your confusion is immense. I understand that different apostles are given different missions. Paul's mission was NOT the same as the TWELVE apostles that will sit on TWELVE thrones judging the TWELVE tribes of ISRAEL.

And yet he wrote some of the most Catholic things in the Bible.

There was never a "pope" and yet you want to talk about Paul's doctrines. Get serious.

Who said anything about a pope? All we're saying is that you all Dispensationalists believe that something called the "everlasting covenant" was "put on hold" without a shred of explicit evidence in Scripture of such a gigantic event ever occurring. You also believe that the Apostolic institution of the office of a bishop was "put on hold", again without the slightest scriptural hint of such a thing ever occurring.

 

[Right Divider]

Or, it's not there at all, and you're seeing ghosts.

Nope... I'm seeing clearly and you are completely blind.

You don't believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, in spite of His own words, and many of Paul's words which are consistent with His Real Presence, such as 1st Corinthians 11:29, "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body."

The "Lord's body" refers to the body of Christ. We are not cannibals.

The word translated "discerning" there is this:

G1252
διακρίνω
diakrinō
dee-ak-ree'-no
From G1223 and G2919; to separate thoroughly, that is, (literally and reflexively) to withdraw from, or (by implication) oppose; figuratively to discriminate (by implication decide), or (reflexively) hesitate: - contend, make (to) differ (-ence), discern, doubt, judge, be partial, stagger, waver.
Total KJV occurrences: 19

And yet he wrote some of the most Catholic things in the Bible.

Whatever that means.

Who said anything about a pope?

You believe that ONE of the TWELVE was different than the rest. Scripture does not support that idea.

All we're saying is that you all Dispensationalists believe that something called the "everlasting covenant" was "put on hold" without a shred of explicit evidence in Scripture of such a gigantic event ever occurring. You also believe that the Apostolic institution of the office of a bishop was "put on hold", again without the slightest scriptural hint of such a thing ever occurring.

Israel's program was "put on hold" -- that is crystal clear from scripture.... i.e., PAULINE scripture. Romans 11 explains it.

 

[Idolater]

Nope... I'm seeing clearly and you are completely blind.

The "Lord's body" refers to the body of Christ. We are not cannibals.

Oh please. Just above verse 29 is verse 24, Paul recounts, "the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: 24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body". This is the immediate, proximate context of verse 29. "You are completely blind".

The word translated "discerning" there is this:

Everybody knows what discern means, that word wasn't even considered archaic by modern translators of this scripture, they all use the same English word: discern. You don't discern His body.

Whatever that means.

You believe that ONE of the TWELVE was different than the rest. Scripture does not support that idea.

You believe that one of the Twelve was different than the rest.

Israel's program was "put on hold" -- that is crystal clear from scripture.... i.e., PAULINE scripture. Romans 11 explains it.

"Crystal clear" but without any plain scriptural statement that the "everlasting covenant" was "put on hold". Romans 11, Acts 9---you all've got nothing.

 

[Right Divider]

Oh please. Just above verse 29 is verse 24, Paul recounts, "the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: 24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body". This is the immediate, proximate context of verse 29.

And YET on the night that Paul described, they ate bread.

"You are completely blind".

Nope... that's you.

Everybody knows what discern means, that word wasn't even considered archaic by modern translators of this scripture, they all use the same English word: discern. You don't discern His body.

Indeed I do "discern" His body, unlike you that confuses Israel and the body of Christ.

You believe that one of the Twelve was different than the rest.

"Crystal clear" but without any plain scriptural statement that the "everlasting covenant" was "put on hold". Romans 11, Acts 9---you all've got nothing.

I see that you've never read Romans 11.

 

[Idolater]

And YET on the night that Paul described, they ate bread.

That's not what the Lord Jesus Christ said. He didn't break it and say, "This is bread," He said, "This is My body."

Nope... that's you.

Indeed I do "discern" His body, unlike you that confuses Israel and the body of Christ.

I don't do that.

I see that you've never read Romans 11.

Yes I did. Just recently too. Didn't see anything in there about a newsflash that the "everlasting covenant" was "put on hold". Romans 11 is actually more consistent with Gentiles being grafted into that covenant, rather than that covenant being "put on hold".

 

[Right Divider]

That's not what the Lord Jesus Christ said. He didn't break it and say, "This is bread," He said, "This is My body."

It's an analogy and not to be taken literally.

In describing Himself as the "bread of life", Jesus said this:

Joh 6:63 KJV It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

I don't do that.

Your "Church" teaches that the body of Christ is the "new Israel".

Yes I did. Just recently too.

Then it's too bad that you cannot understand it.

Didn't see anything in there about a newsflash that the "everlasting covenant" was "put on hold". Romans 11 is actually more consistent with Gentiles being grafted into that covenant, rather than that covenant being "put on hold".

The "new covenant" is between the same TWO parties as the OLD covenant -- Israel and God.