What and Where are the Terms of the New Covenant?

Yep, group thing definitely didn't work for the Hebrews.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

quote:

---

(Luke 22:20) This cup means the new covenant by virtue of my blood, which is to be poured out in YOUR behalf."

---

Now you getting back to where we started on this thread.Mark and Matthew don't say the word new; only Luke who worked with Paul. Book of Luke is considered to be written after the letters of Paul. See Paul's influence again.

quote:

---

(Jeremiah 31:31) "Look! There are days coming," is the utterance of Jehovah, "and I will conclude with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant;"

---

Notice "I will" and "with the house of Israel and the house of Judah". No ifs and nothing about accepting the messiah. If the New Covenant you speak of is this one, then there would be no need for Paul. (No longer will a man teach his neighbor...)God will forgive and forget. Didn't say he would cast them aside for their sins.And God continues.... I don't think moon and stars stopped shining after the death of Christ and I don't think they were able to measure the heavens or search the foundations of the earth. I still see the moon and stars shinging today. Can we measure the heavens or search the foundations of the earth today?

quote:

---

You can't reject the words of Paul, what he wrote wouldn't be in the Bible if it wasn't in harmony with the rest of scripture.

---

I'm rejecting your presentation of Paul because you present him in a way that does contradict the OT.Yashanet (the one you think twists Paul's teachings) does very well at keeping Paul more in line with God's earlier promises. They don't present God as going against his earlier promises. Matthew Study

quote:

---

Because the Jews as a group, rejected Jesus as the messiah,

---

That's as bad as the polls I see on the news about whatever % of Americans are happy with the U.S. President or unhappy etc. Not once have I ever been asked about how I feel about what any President is doing.Was Jesus able to talk with every single Jew during his ministry? Did every single Jew see all the miracles?

quote:

---

(2 Peter 3:15-16) "Paul according to the wisdom given him also wrote YOU, speaking about these things as he does also in all [his] letters. In them, however, are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unsteady are twisting, as [they do] also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

---

Paul's letters would not have been considered Scripture within his lifetime. By Scripture I mean those things that are cannonized. They may have been considered "writings", but if Peter means true Scripture, then this was not written during the time of Paul.

quote:

---

Paul did have a writing style that can be hard to understand and many today still twist it

---

The question is, which twist is the right twist?

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

Why do you reject what Jesus said: "I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest leter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." (Matthew 5:17-18)Which by your own words

quote:

---

We are still waiting for the day when this will be true, it hasn't come to pass yet so we still need people like Paul. The New Covenant is going to bring this about through the Messianic Kingdom when Christ takes control of the earth and we see the fulfillment of the meek inheriting the earth.

---

The "new covenant" spoken of in Jeremiah 31 is not in effect.

quote:

---

As a people the Jews failed to live up to the covenant as demonstrated by their rejection of the Messiah, so as a group they were rejected.

---

As of yet, no one has shown me where in the OT that God tells the Hebrews they have to accept the messiah as part of the Mosaic covenant. Not very upfront to hear about that part of the covenant until a thousand or so years later.

quote:

---

(Matthew 21:43) " This is why I say to YOU, The kingdom of God will be taken from YOU and be given to a nation producing its fruits."

---

This still doesn't end the Mosaic covenant."When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard Jesus' parables, they knew he was talking about them...." Matthew 21:45According to the paragraph that followed, your phrase was referring to the Pharisees and not Israel.I don't see that Christianity is producing any better fruit than the Jews.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

quote:

---

Actually they were told even before they got the law covenant.
(Genesis 49:10) "Judah, neither the commander's staff from between his feet, until Shiloh comes; and to him the obedience of the peoples will belong."

---

Good Grief! That's a blessing from Jacob to his sons and not part of the Mosaic covenant.
How long was that before Moses? Over 400 years???

quote:

---

(Deuteronomy 18:17-19) "At that Jehovah said to me, . . . A prophet I shall raise up for them from the midst of their brothers, like you; and I shall indeed put my words in his mouth, and he will certainly speak to them all that I shall command him. And it must occur that the man who will not listen to my words that he will speak in my name, I shall myself require an account from him."

---

God said he would deal with the person himself who did not listen to the prophet, not reject the entire nation.You still haven't shown me where in the OT that God tells the Hebrews they have to accept the messiah as part of the Mosaic covenant. Not that they have to listen to every prophet that passes the test and obey God's word that came from that prophet.BTW, what do they have to accept about the messiah?
Believe that he is the annointed one?
Believe that he is a deity?
Believe that he came back from the dead?What did Jesus tell them to do (since they are supposed to obey what the prophet/messiah tells them came from God)?
What words did he give them from God?

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

quote:

---

198 years

---

Where do you get 198yrs? Reads a little different in the Torah. You forgot a line.
This has nothing to do with Jesus.
Still doesn't say disown and give the farm away!

quote:

---

(Matthew 28:18-20) "And Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: "All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth. Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded YOU."

---

Excellent! He told them to teach so therefore the new covenant in Jeremiah is not in effect because at that time no one will need to teach. Also since he told them to teach obviously it is not written on our hearts. What things did Jesus command that we are supposed to observe? So still waiting on the end of age, when the New Jerusalem is expected and the new covenant as defined in Jeremiah is to take place.

quote:

---

If the whole of the Mosaic law code could be summed up by those two commands, it shows how much is entailed in Jesus' commands to his followers. The thrust of the law code was based on love, which would be the heart of the law, those principles would be what principles God was expecting from Christians.

---

Which brings us right back to the Mosaic Laws. So the Mosaic Covenant didn't end for the Jews and the Jerusalem Church expected the Gentiles to follow those principles, but not including circumcision since it was part of the Abrahamic covenant.What you have shown me is Jesus teaching the Jewish religion and that nothing ended for the Jews.You may say I'm looking for loop holes, but a contract is serious stuff and claiming that God dumped the Jews and then referring back to vague references, isn't quite contractual. God disciplined the Jews, but I don't see that he disowned them.Now the religion that Paul created for the Gentiles is supposedly based on the Law of Christ which no one actually wants to list what that means other than love your neighbor etc.You and WT have opened my eyes to some very interesting facts. Thanks

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

It is a shame that the Hebrew Bible was written so terribly that they needed Paul to interpret it for them so long after the fact.From what you are showing me, we can't take the OT at face value and only Paul knows the secret. We have to trust Paul and his vision which no one else saw or heard. Unfortunately Paul doesn't write plainly either and has been interpreted every which way but loose. We can't take him at face value and have to trust yet another person to interpret Paul.No wonder the Jews couldn't obey God. He speaks in riddles and apparently we won't get the answers until the end of time.Not really a fair and loving God from what I can see. Sets people up for failure.You're making an all powerful God sound just as unpredictable as humans.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

quote:

---

Through power of the holy spirit the NT writers interpreted many of the OT prophecies and showed how they were fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

---

You assume. You have no way of knowing if they listened to the holy spirit or not.I'm really not going to lose sleep or the 430 years thing. My point was that there was a very long period of time between a statement (Gen 49:10) that you say refers to The Messiah (Jesus, not just any messiah) and the time when the laws were given by Moses. Whether it is 198 or 430 it is a long time between statement and agreement. Not a fair way to do up a contract.How do you or Paul figure that Shiloh refers directly to Jesus?

quote:

---

Paul maybe a bit hard to understand at times, but not that hard, all you have to do is read it carefully in the context that it was written, don't just take a verse here or there and use it out of context.

---

Where have I used Paul out of context? You and WT are the ones quoting Paul.
I'm looking for the new covenant from Jesus not Paul.The really big problem here is that we don't know in what context it was truly written. Like I've said before, Paul's letters are only one side of the conversation.

quote:

---

hidden these things from the wise and intellectual ones and have revealed them to babes

---

What things? Jesus was talking about miracles in the previous paragraph.If we are to read and learn, then nothing should be hidden.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

quote:

---

Throughout the OT there a running theme of the seed, the messiah whom Jehovah would give an everlasting kingdom that would rule over all the earth.

---

Talk about out of context! Seed as it is used here is plural meaning descendants. Why would the devil need descendants? Sometimes a snake is just a snake. Again the usage means descendants (plural) not one specific person. This is still a blessing from Jacob to his son Judah. Not a promise from God.

quote:

---

The term shiloh means "He to Whom It Belongs" so the prophecy was that future kings in Israel would come from the tribe of Judah until shiloh or the messiah who would receive the kingship and keep it.

---

But that's not what it says. The concordances I've seen aren't sure of the meaning. Sounds like Solomon and again no mention of a messiah dealing with eternal life.

quote:

---

If the kings had remained faithful, there could have been a solid line of Judaean kings reaching down to the Messiah, but due to their unfaithfulness, that was not the case.

---

If the kings had remained "faithful", there would have been no need for the messiah.

quote:

---

Ezekiel prophesied that the line of kings would be ended and would stay ended until the Shiloh, the who had the legal right, came to claim the kingship.

---

Kings in Israel were gone, but Ezekiel didn't mention Judah or Shiloh. Not future tense.

quote:

---

(Isaiah 11:10) "And it must occur in that day that there will be the root of Jesse that will be standing up as a signal for the peoples.

---

From the way this reads, Jesse had more than one son. So the messiah may not have to be from the line of David. Besides, if you read all of Isaiah 11, none of the rest came to be during the life of Jesus or afterwards. It didn't say anyone had to believe in miracles, the law would end, or that the messiah would die and rise again. Didn't say anything about eternal life.What you have shown me deals with temporal life, not eternal life.

quote:

---

That goofy web site you referred to did so extensively and you have been taking their side.

---

Ah, guilt by association. So even though Yashanet believes in Christ, but chooses to continue the Jewish tradition, they are wrong in their interpretation of Paul? Are you saying the Holy Spirit doesn't guide them?You assume that I'm not guided by God or the Holy Spirit in what I understand because it is different than yours. There's not much I an do about that. I prayed for the truth and much has been revealed.You on the other hand have not shown me that the OT supports your position or presentation of Paul's interpretation.No one has yet shown me that Jesus gave terms of a new covenant or that the old ends.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

Now I see what you mean by context. Your idea of OT context is in relation to the NT not in reading the words as they are written. I have 43 years of Christianity under my belt, but I never did believe that God played games with people like the Greek Gods supposedly did.

quote:

---

The seed of the woman refers to Jesus Christ, notice the part about him receiving the heel wound and later giving the Devil a lethal head wound.

---

In the true sense of the word context, this line just talks about people and snakes.If we use your premise that "seed" means one specific child, then the snake/Devil also had one specific child. Who was the Devil's specific offspring and when did Jesus give him a lethal head wound?

quote:

---

(Galatians 3:16) "Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. It says, not: "And to seeds," as in the case of many such, but as in the case of one: "And to your seed," who is Christ." Paul clearly stated that the prophetic portion of this verse referred to Jesus Christ.

---

I am quite familiar with this statement and Paul is wrong about the use of the word seed and seeds. When referring to descendants (plural), the word "seeds" is not a term used. Still means descendants not one specific descendant. It is quite clear in the OT when the word means one descendant. (Gen 21:13, 2Sam 7:12, Isa 41:8) It is the continuation of a tempral monarchy and still doesn't refer to a specific messiah or personal eternal life, no matter how bold you make it.

quote:

---

What you said is a rejection of the necessity of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, I hope you didn't mean it that way. Jesus Christ died for our sins, there is no other way we could have been saved.

---

Here again, I think we have a different idea of what the messiah was supposed to accomplish.
If the kings remained faithful, then God would not have sent nations against them; and if God had not sent nations against them or scattered them, then God would not have needed to send a messiah to destroy the enemy and bring Israel back together.What do you believe God was to send the messiah to save the Jews from?

quote:

---

No, not because you differ from me, but because what you say is in conflict with scripture.

---

What you say is also in conflict with scripture. From what I see from my window, heaven and earth are still here. God did not end any of his everlasting temporal covenants with the Hebrews or their descendants. I have not seen in the OT (within its proper context) where God cites belief in a specific messiah as a condition of keeping these covenants perpetual.Now if everything was accomplished then obviously heaven and earth would not be here and we wouldn't be having this discussion.Again Jesus did not claim an end to the Mosaic covenant or laws.
Paul is not the messiah or a prophet.
Paul may have been a student of Gamaliel, but we don't really know if he was a good student or not. We don't even know if he agreed with the teachings of Gamaliel.

quote:

---

Many Bible prophecies are phrased in the past tense

---

Which means what exactly? That past tense means present or that past tense means future?Some translations have it written in present tense. So was it written in present tense or past tense? Was it written in past tense and these transcribers took that to mean present tense?

quote:

---

Paul was very clear that Mosaic covenant had ended with Jesus' death

---

Paul is still not Jesus!
Jesus gave no indication that the Mosaic Covenant, which deals with temporal life, would come to and end until the earth disappeared. This would obviously be the end of temporal life as we know it.The Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants have nothing to do with eternal life and never did. They deal with temporal life (day to day living).
No need for either or part to end to make room for a covenant dealing with eternal life.And so the dance continues!

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

quote:

---

In taking Bible verses in context it is necessary to consider the immediate text and all the other verses in the Bible where the subject is considered. By considering all the verses in both the OT and the NT it is possible to gain a much better understanding than considering just one occurrence of the subject in isolation. The term for this is 'study'.

---

When the NT makes a claim based on what the OT says, then you take what the OT says within its own context (time, space, culture) for the meaning. Since the NT writers are using the OT as proof of their veracity, then what they claim the OT says and what the OT says within in its own context should agree. That's how one keeps from being duped by clever evangelists.Besides, which translation is correct? Hard to have absolutes when there are various translations.
Plus you still haven't told me who the Devil's progeny are.Then when you consider the part about: we are still talking about snakes and people.

quote:

---

Which puts you in a interesting position as someone who claims to follow Christ.

---

I wasn't debating the validity of messianic prophecies with you.My point was that God did not include believing in the messiah (specificlly Jesus) as part of the Abrahamic or Mosaic covenant with the premise that if they did not, these covenants would be canceled in part or in full and the Jews would be disowned.Therefore neither the Abrahamic nor the Mosaic covenant ended for the Jews.By your own statements the new covenant of Jeremiah 31 won't be in effect until the world to come.What you say Jesus put in place of the Mosaic law is the Law of Christ or the Law of Love. Then what you show as characteristics of the Law of Love are the same behavioral teachings of Judaism.So what is the purpose of canceling the Mosaic law and then placing a generic law in its place? It just means the culture has to start all over in determining the specifics of the generic law. Christianity jumps right back to the Mosaic laws to determine the specifics.So what did canceling the Mosaic laws accomplish?

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

WmScott: You then proceeded to bring up scriptures to show how it was progressively revealed.I disagreed that the OT scriptures you showed me said that the Hebrews would lose the covenants if they did not believe in a messiah or Jesus specificly, secretly or otherwise. A contract should not be full of secrets.Do this for me. Make a simple list of the terms of the NC or the Law of Christ or the Law of Love. Put it in your own words and the scripture you pulled it from. Don't just copy down the whole NT.Thanks

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

From the answers I've received, Jesus summed up God's new covenant or law of love with two phrases: Looks like all the rest is commentary.I'm going on vacation. Enjoy July!

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.