ECT Things known for ages--Acts 15

I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Right Divider said:
There are MANY covenants in the Bible, just like there are many gospels... Interplanner.
Click to expand...




That is not the sense of Hebrews at all. it is the old vs the new. then at the end (once) the eternal mentioned and since we all know Christ did not die twice and pass through the heavens twice, he's referring to the new covenant.

The Isaianic gospel (the only place it is mentioned) is that Christ's suffering and enthronement was the reign of God that was coming. it was not going to be a restored Judaism or Israel in charge of all nations. it was going to become the mission about that same message.

Your system of interp is worthless and parasitic and impositioning.
 
Right Divider

Right Divider

Body part
Interplanner said:
That is not the sense of Hebrews at all. it is the old vs the new. then at the end (once) the eternal mentioned and since we all know Christ did not die twice and pass through the heavens twice, he's referring to the new covenant.
Click to expand...
The new covenant replaces the old covenant and BOTH are between God and Israel.

Jer 31:31-34 (AKJV/PCE)​
(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: (31:32) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: (31:33) But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. (31:34) And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
​

This is precisely CONFIRMED in Hebrews:

Heb 8:6-13 (AKJV/PCE)​
(8:6) But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. (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. ​

Notice the first and SECOND covenants?

Interplanner said:
The Isaianic gospel (the only place it is mentioned) is that Christ's suffering and enthronement was the reign of God that was coming. it was not going to be a restored Judaism or Israel in charge of all nations. it was going to become the mission about that same message.
Click to expand...
Who invented this garbage?

Interplanner said:
Your system of interp is worthless and parasitic and impositioning.
Click to expand...
Parasitic? LOL

Explain what one, "grammar scholar".
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Right Divider said:
The new covenant replaces the old covenant and BOTH are between God and Israel.

Jer 31:31-34 (AKJV/PCE)​
(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: (31:32) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: (31:33) But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. (31:34) And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
​

This is precisely CONFIRMED in Hebrews:

Heb 8:6-13 (AKJV/PCE)​
(8:6) But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. (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. ​

Notice the first and SECOND covenants?


Who invented this garbage?


Parasitic? LOL

Explain what one, "grammar scholar".
Click to expand...





the new can't be between God and Israel, because Christ has accomplished it, like Isaiah said. It benefits the Israel of God but it is not and was not about a restored Judaism, temple, land. It is what Hebrews says, which is why it is the eternal one. Because Christ is eternal and indestructible life. It is those IN CHRIST who benefit, which is said everywhere in Paul. That is why there is no doctrine of restoring Judaism as such in Israel as such using the previous worship system as such. Nowhere in the NT; the very opposite in Hebrews. But I don't know if you read Hebrews for its own sake, only for finding a prooftext going the other direction.

Find another gospel reference after they knew they will be exiled. It is the one in Is 61, the only one. It is part of the comfort of Israel. IN the center of it is the crucified Servant, unless you are so steep in Judaism that you think that person in that chapter was Israel. You, RD, sound like that.

D'ism is parasitic by eating on the rich truth in Christ in the NT and making it glorify a restored Judaism in Israel as such instead of glorifying Christ. Everything that is focusing on Christ in the NT is said by D'ism to be deflected to a 2nd round of land promises, which misses the whole point of Hebrews and is nowhere in the NT, and seriously disrupts the beauty of the progression from old to new in Christ.
 
Right Divider

Right Divider

Body part
Interplanner said:
the new can't be between God and Israel, because Christ has accomplished it, like Isaiah said.
Click to expand...
Jer 31:31 (AKJV/PCE)​
(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: ​

How can a "grammar scholar" completely lack the ability to read this simple sentence and understand it?

Unbelief is the only reasonable answer.
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
the new can't be between God and Israel, because Christ has accomplished it, like Isaiah said. It benefits the Israel of God but it is not and was not about a restored Judaism, temple, land. It is what Hebrews says, which is why it is the eternal one. Because Christ is eternal and indestructible life. It is those IN CHRIST who benefit, which is said everywhere in Paul. That is why there is no doctrine of restoring Judaism as such in Israel as such using the previous worship system as such. Nowhere in the NT; the very opposite in Hebrews. But I don't know if you read Hebrews for its own sake, only for finding a prooftext going the other direction.

Find another gospel reference after they knew they will be exiled. It is the one in Is 61, the only one. It is part of the comfort of Israel. IN the center of it is the crucified Servant, unless you are so steep in Judaism that you think that person in that chapter was Israel. You, RD, sound like that.

D'ism is parasitic by eating on the rich truth in Christ in the NT and making it glorify a restored Judaism in Israel as such instead of glorifying Christ. Everything that is focusing on Christ in the NT is said by D'ism to be deflected to a 2nd round of land promises, which misses the whole point of Hebrews and is nowhere in the NT, and seriously disrupts the beauty of the progression from old to new in Christ.
Click to expand...

Poor IP, swimming in a sea of commentaries without a life jacket.
 
D

Danoh

New member
Saying Isaianic is like saying Pauline; there is nothing wrong with it.

Isaiah had a doctrine more advanced in revelation then those prophets who'd come before him.
 
Right Divider

Right Divider

Body part
Interplanner said:
Not at all; actually it might be a good thing to drown in terms of 2P2P.

My commentaries are the NT on the OT, which you ignore. You always evade the plain meaning, and go outside of Christ for answers.
Click to expand...
Since you have no idea what the new testament is, your "theory" fails from the get-go.

Since you reject the PLAIN, CLEAR and UNAMBIGUOUS definition of the new covenant in scripture, there is no understanding of it in you.

You are a pretender.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Right Divider said:
Since you have no idea what the new testament is, your "theory" fails from the get-go.

Since you reject the PLAIN, CLEAR and UNAMBIGUOUS definition of the new covenant in scripture, there is no understanding of it in you.

You are a pretender.
Click to expand...





Oh, I didn't realize the synoptics last supper and I Cor 11 and 2 Cor 3-5 were "not" Scripture, that's why I don't know what you mean. You have milked all you can out of one verse that favors your two programs and have made a mockery of study.

You did this 'what NT?' trick last time and it failed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top