Hebrews is a carefully argued theological treatise written to remind negligent believers of the greatness of their salvation and to rekindle their commitment to it.
Hebrews is a carefully argued theological treatise written to remind negligent believers of the greatness of their salvation and to rekindle their commitment to it.
Hebrews was written to Hebrews about their earthly kingdom program with God and the promises that He made to Israel.
The body of Christ has a different destiny and a different calling.
You are mistaken.I gave you a scripture that you do not and apparently cannot understand.
This is exactly what happens when you already have your story made up and will not let scripture interfere.
Paul never claimed to be under the new testament. He made it clear that God had revealed a way to be saved by grace through faith apart from any covenant, law, nation, etc. etc. etc. But you don't like the truth.
You cannot handle the truth, no matter how many times we show it to you.
[Right Divider;n2734020]
I'm not going to follow every rabbit trail you want to throw at me.
The definition of the new covenant in Jeremiah is completely unambiguous and clear. God will make a new covenant with ISRAEL.
What "promise"? Not the new covenant that CLEARLY and UNAMBIGUOUSLY says that the new covenant is between God and Israel.
Has the ever occurred to you that the blood could cover more than just the new covenant?
We in the body of Christ are saved by grace through faith without a covenant of any kind.
That isn't supported by account of the event (eg Matthew 26:26-29) or by the prophets. In other words the Eucharist has doctrinal aspect which doesn't originate with the Messianic teachings.By instituting the practice of the Eucharist Jesus was saying that Gentiles and Jews were both partakers in the New Covenant in His blood.
And I explained that to you and still you have no clue.You are mistaken.
No such thing what you say.
Paul says plainly that he is the MINISTER OF THE NEW COVENANT.
There is a LOT more to it than just that.I do not think you understand what the covenant is. It concerns forgiveness of sin and reconciliation to God. By instituting the practice of the Eucharist Jesus was saying that Gentiles and Jews were both partakers in the New Covenant in His blood.
Your long winded posts do not merit a long winded reply.BTW If you do not want to engage please say so
Paul QUOTES JESUS making the New Covenant! And then PAUL SAYS he is the minister of the New Covenant. Not a different New Covenant---NO SUCH THING.And I explained that to you and still you have no clue.
How much more clear could God be through Jeremiah and confirmed again in the book to the Hebrews?
Jer 31:31-33 KJV 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: (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: (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.
It cannot be more clear. That is UNAMBIGUOUS and CRYSTAL CLEAR.
That you reject scripture is a shame on you.
So what!!!! Paul quotes lots of things, including pagan philosophers.Paul QUOTES JESUS making the New Covenant! And then PAUL SAYS he is the minister of the New Covenant.
Never said that there was a "different new covenant". You always try to twist what people say, just like you twist the scripture.Not a different New Covenant---NO SUCH THING.
NO KIDDING?!?!?God SPOKE TO the House of Israel and the house of Judah BECAUSE He had a COVENANT with them---
Indeed, that's what YOU need to answer... not me.God did NOT have a covenant with the Gentiles---So WHY WOULD say that to the Gentiles?!
Crazy talk.BUT God said the Gentiles would get to be in the one and only Covenant with them.
CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT....Paul calls it Jews first then Gentiles.
So what!!!! Paul quotes lots of things, including pagan philosophers.
No way do I do that.Never said that there was a "different new covenant". You always try to twist what people say, just like you twist the scripture.
There is neither Jew or Greek means it doesn't matter when we get saved and are in Christ.NO KIDDING?!?!?
That is exactly how He can make a NEW covenant that replaces the OLD covenant... both with ISRAEL! Just like the Bible says in Jeremiah and Hebrews.
Indeed, that's what YOU need to answer... not me.
Crazy talk.
CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT....
In the BODY OF CHRIST there is NEITHER JEW NOR GREEK... so how is one "first".
Rom 1:16-17 KJV For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. (17) For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
There are TWO FAITHS mentioned there (something that you, of course, will not understand).
Paul quoted Jesus confirming the new covenant with those that the new covenant applied to. No great mystery there.Paul quoted Jesus! And then said that he is a minister of the new covenant.
Yes, Jesus was with the twelve apostles that will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of ISRAEL. All according to God's plans for the NATION OF ISRAEL. No great mystery there.Here Paul tells when Jesus made that covenant:
1 Corinthians 11:25 In the same way, after supper He took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."
Scripture mashing again.Here Paul tells how Jesus gave the covenant that was promised a long time ago when God said He would write the new law on our hearts:
2 Corinthians 3:3 It is clear that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.
That scripture has NOTHING to do with the NEW COVENANT. More turning the scripture on its head like you always do!Paul is explaining that HE COULD NOT CHANGE THE COVENANT, which further proves Paul taught exactly what Jesus taught when he walked the earth:
Galatians 3:15 Brothers, let me put this in human terms. Even a human covenant, once it is ratified, cannot be canceled or amended.
Conflating gospels and covenants like to good little Bible twister/masher.When Jesus was on earth, he made the testament/covenant conditions, and then he died for the testament and covenant, rose again, and ascended.
Jesus couldn't come and make a different gospel/covenant with Paul because this is the one and only everlasting covenant of his blood.
The sheep are ISRAEL per pretty much every prophet of ISRAEL (per God's Word).Hebrews 13:20 Now may the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great Shepherd of the sheep,
Paul is talking about doctrine for the BODY OF CHRIST there in Ephesians. That does NOT preclude two faiths as "FAITH TO FAITH" clearly indicates.No such thing as two faiths.
Ephesians 4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism;
Was it a testament or a covenant?When Jesus was on earth, he made the testament/covenant conditions, and then he died for the testament and covenant, rose again, and ascended.
That isn't supported by account of the event (eg Matthew 26:26-29) or by the prophets. In other words the Eucharist has doctrinal aspect which doesn't originate with the Messianic teachings.
{Right Divider;n2734173]
There is a LOT more to it than just that.
Your long winded posts do not merit a long winded reply.
How much more clear could God be through Jeremiah and confirmed again in the book to the Hebrews?er 31:31-33 KJV 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: (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: (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.
It cannot be more clear. That is UNAMBIGUOUS and CRYSTAL CLEAR.
Was it a testament or a covenant?
If it was a testament, then why the change from covenants referred to in Exodus 24:6-6 and Jeremiah 31:31-33 to a testament?
If it was a covenant, then why should he have to die for it? The blood of Exodus 24 was only a symbol of the practice and consent of the people of the covenant.
God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
Matthew 22:32, KJV
But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
Matthew 12:7
The wine represented one aspect of the new covenant to ISRAEL.I think it is pretty clear that the Gentiles were participants in the New Covenant. This was revealed every time they drank the wine which represented the NEW COVENANT in Christ's blood.
Ah... the RITE.... where did Paul institute this rite?Paul never excluded the Gentiles from this rite although, if it had been contrary to fact, if the Gentiles were NOT truly partakers of the NEW COVENANT in His blood he would not have allowed them to participate.
Was it a testament or a covenant?
If it was a testament, then why the change from covenants referred to in Exodus 24:6-6 and Jeremiah 31:31-33 to a testament?
If it was a covenant, then why should he have to die for it? The blood of Exodus 24 was only a symbol of the practice and consent of the people of the covenant.
God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
Matthew 22:32, KJV
But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
Matthew 12:7
[Right Divider;n2734434]
The wine represented one aspect of the new covenant to ISRAEL.
Ah... the RITE.... where did Paul institute this rite?
Once again, you must deny and twist what God says about the new covenant in Jeremiah.
If the new covenant/testament was a "gentile thing", don't you think that Paul would mention it more than just twice in ALL of this THIRTEEN epistles?
And ONE of those TWO mentions is quoting the Lord Jesus Christ speaking exclusively to the twelve apostles that will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of ISRAEL.
And ONE of those TWO mentions is quoting the Lord Jesus Christ speaking exclusively to the twelve apostles that will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of ISRAEL.