The Current War against Iran and Support for Israel is based on Catholic Counter Reformation Theology.

[covenantee]

Why would prophesies still in the future/end of the world be 'fulfilled in the New Testament?

Certainly there are NT prophecies which will be fulfilled in the future/end of the world.

But land for Israel is not among them.

If the future will see land being given to Israel, then will the future also see reinstated OT animal sacrifices being given to Israel?

There are many a dispen/premil who believe that it will.

 

[covenantee]

Are these verses referring to two different things? I don't believe so.

Hebrews 7:22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.

Hebrews 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.

The words "testament" and "covenant" in these veress are translated from the same Greek word ""diathéké", so the decision by the KJV translators to translate the Greek word differently in each verse is highly questionable. In the NKJV, the Greek word is translated as "covenant" in Hebrews 7:22 instead of testament, so it is more consistent.

The following passage indicates that both the new covenant and new testament went into effect upon the death of Christ...

Hebrews 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. 16 For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17 For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives. 18 Therefore not even the first covenant was dedicated without blood.

This is from the NKJV. It's worth noting again that the words "covenant" and "testament" in this passage are both translated from the same Greek word "diathéké". In the KJV the Greek word is translated as "testament" every time it's used in this passage, so at least it's consistent even though I would say that the word should have been translated as "covenant" in each verse instead. Why the NKJV translators translated that word as both "covenant" and "testament" within this passage is a bit of a mystery since it indicates that both the new covenant and the new testament were put into effect by the death of Christ.

In this passage it indicates the Jesus became the Mediator of the new covenant by way of His death and it also implies that the new testament was in force by way of His death since it explains that a testament is only in force after the death of the testator (Jesus, in this case). And it is explained that the first covenant (the old covenant) was not in force without blood (the death of a sacrificed animal). So, the words covenant and testament seem to be used interchangeably as synonyms in this passage, which is why the English translators apparently had trouble deciding which English word the Greek word should be translated to in each verse that it was used. The words covenant and testament don't mean the same thing in English, but the Greek word that was translated as both "covenant" and "testament" seems to mean the same thing in each of the above verses and others that refer to the new covenant or new testament.

I like to think of it this way: When our New Covenant conditions of faith and obedience are met, then God's New Testament blessings of forgiveness and eternal life are lavished.

 

[dad]

Certainly there are NT prophecies which will be fulfilled in the future/end of the world.

But land for Israel is not among them.

Where did you think God gathers all the believing Jews in the world and transports them to...Saturn?

If the future will see land being given to Israel, then will the future also see reinstated OT animal sacrifices being given to Israel?

There are many a dispen/premil who believe that it will.

The sacrifices of old pointed the way to Jesus. If any sacrificing is done in the future by them, it will remember Jesus and what He did.

 

[covenantee]

Where did you think God gathers all the believing Jews in the world and transports them to...Saturn?

The same place as He gathers all the believing Gentiles.

The sacrifices of old pointed the way to Jesus. If any sacrificing is done in the future by them, it will remember Jesus and what He did.

No it won't, because it would desecrate His Once-For-All Sacrifice at Calvary.

Like land for Israel, it will never happen.

Hebrews 10
9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

 

[PinSeeker]

@Spiritual Israelite
@covenantee

As I said before, Jesus is the mediator of the covenant of grace, which was made with Adam upon his Fall. Previous to that, Adam was the mediator of the covenant of works, which, upon the Fall, he ~ and all humanity ~ became incapable of meeting. Christ began mediating this covenant of Grace in Adam's time, after the Fall in Genesis 3, and Genesis 3:15 is the first hint of that. The sacrifice of Jesus on the cross ~ the true Lamb without blemish ~ stretches over all time from Adam to the present.

This covenant of grace has been administrated in different ways, cumulative ways, actually, since then:

• life (first with Adam and then remade with Noah... "be fruitful and multiply")
• land, a people, and blessing (with Abraham... "as the stars of heaven, the grains of sand on the seashore")
• a law (with Moses, the civil, ceremonial, and moral)
• and a king over Israel (with David)

and finally being made manifest in the Person of Jesus Christ, Who Himself is:

• the one Who is the way, the truth, and the life (John)
• the one in Whom we are all one (Romans 8, Galatians 3), are blessed, of course, and will inherit the earth (Matthew 5:5)
• (since the law never made anything perfect) the better hope through which we draw near to God, so Jesus is the guarantor of a better covenant (Hebrews 7)
• Israel's forever King, Who reigns now in heaven, seated at the right hand of the Father

So no, the New Testament (which comes after the Old Testament) and the New Covenant are not equivalent terms. Unless... unless... you want to equivocate this new testament with the covenant of grace, which... you can do, and hey, if you were to do that, I'd be right there with ya... <smile>

What Hebrews 9:15 says, Spiritual Israelite, is "He is..." ~ He is, not "he became," as if He wasn't before; His sacrifice, from that point, stretches backward in time, all the way to Adam, as well as forward to everyone who will be saved ~ "...the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant."

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the KJV is not "bad." It is not inaccurate. But the language is antiquated and harder for us... 700 years later... to really understand well, just because word usage, among other things, has changed over time... is different than it was seven centuries ago. The word "testament," as we are talking about it here, is... well, we use that word differently than they did seven centuries ago; case in point. The English language, especially here in America is just not... antiquated like it was then. That's not to say it's better now, just different. The NKJV is better than the KJV, but it still can be... not inaccurate, but just harder to understand to our twenty-first century ears, and the word "testament" in the Hebrews passage you are speaking of falls into that... category, I guess... again, case in point; it's not incorrect, but it's widely understood differently now than it was then.

So... <smile> The better English word to use there is in fact 'covenant,' because it better conveys to us what it actually is, an agreement between two parties... a binding commitment between two parties obliging both to deal faithfully with each other.

This is just me, but I prefer in order, the English Standard Version (ESV), the New American Standard Bible (NASB), and the New International Version (NIV).

Grace and peace to all.

 

[PinSeeker]

Where did you think God gathers all the believing Jews in the world and transports them to...Saturn?

Grace and peace to you.

 

[covenantee]

@Spiritual Israelite
@covenantee

As I said before, Jesus is the mediator of the covenant of grace, which was made with Adam upon his Fall. Previous to that, Adam was the mediator of the covenant of works, which, upon the Fall, he ~ and all humanity ~ became incapable of meeting. Christ began mediating this covenant of Grace in Adam's time, after the Fall in Genesis 3, and Genesis 3:15 is the first hint of that. The sacrifice of Jesus on the cross ~ the true Lamb without blemish ~ stretches over all time from Adam to the present.

This covenant of grace has been administrated in different ways, cumulative ways, actually, since then:

• life (first with Adam and then remade with Noah... "be fruitful and multiply")
• land, a people, and blessing (with Abraham... "as the stars of heaven, the grains of sand on the seashore")
• a law (with Moses, the civil, ceremonial, and moral)
• and a king over Israel (with David)

and finally being made manifest in the Person of Jesus Christ, Who Himself is:

• the one Who is the way, the truth, and the life (John)
• the one in Whom we are all one (Romans 8, Galatians 3), are blessed, of course, and will inherit the earth (Matthew 5:5)
• (since the law never made anything perfect) the better hope through which we draw near to God, so Jesus is the guarantor of a better covenant (Hebrews 7)
• Israel's forever King, Who reigns now in heaven, seated at the right hand of the Father

So no, the New Testament (which comes after the Old Testament) and the New Covenant are not equivalent terms. Unless... unless... you want to equivocate this new testament with the covenant of grace, which... you can do, and hey, if you were to do that, I'd be right there with ya... <smile>

What Hebrews 9:15 says, Spiritual Israelite, is "He is..." ~ He is, not "he became," as if He wasn't before; His sacrifice, from that point, stretches backward in time, all the way to Adam, as well as forward to everyone who will be saved ~ "...the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant."

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the KJV is not "bad." It is not inaccurate. But the language is antiquated and harder for us... 700 years later... to really understand well, just because word usage, among other things, has changed over time... is different than it was seven centuries ago. The word "testament," as we are talking about it here, is... well, we use that word differently than they did seven centuries ago; case in point. The English language, especially here in America is just not... antiquated like it was then. That's not to say it's better now, just different. The NKJV is better than the KJV, but it still can be... not inaccurate, but just harder to understand to our twenty-first century ears, and the word "testament" in the Hebrews passage you are speaking of falls into that... category, I guess... again, case in point; it's not incorrect, but it's widely understood differently now than it was then.

So... <smile> The better English word to use there is in fact 'covenant,' because it better conveys to us what it actually is, an agreement between two parties... a binding commitment between two parties obliging both to deal faithfully with each other.

This is just me, but I prefer in order, the English Standard Version (ESV), the New American Standard Bible (NASB), and the New International Version (NIV).

Grace and peace to all.

Hebrews 9:15-18 clearly describes more the "New Testament" than the "New Covenant".

The latter is not effectualized "by means of death".

 

[dad]

The same place as He gathers all the believing Gentiles.

You think that we are all getting gathered to the promised land? That is where God promises to gather Israel in the end.

No it won't, because it would desecrate His Once-For-All Sacrifice at Calvary.

Fulfilling His promise to have compassion on the saved remnant in the end, and restoring them will 'desecrate' Calvary??

Like land for Israel, it will never happen.

God says otherwise. He promises to gather them and restore them.

Hebrews 10
9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Being sanctified by Jesus has nothing to do with promises He made to restore Israel in the end.

11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

Yes and what does Jesus taking away sins have to do with making His fulfilling promises to saved Israel bad?

 

[covenantee]

You think that we are all getting gathered to the promised land? That is where God promises to gather Israel in the end.

Saved Israel goes to Heaven. Unsaved Israel goes to hell.

Fulfilling His promise to have compassion on the saved remnant in the end, and restoring them will 'desecrate' Calvary??

What are you talking about??

The issue was whether OT animal sacrifices would be reinstated.

They won't. They would desecrate Calvary.

Please try to stay on topic.

 

[dad]

Saved Israel goes to Heaven. Unsaved Israel goes to hell.

So God doesn't really gather Israel from all over the world and restore them to the land? Why did He say He would six ways from Sunday? You overrule God?

What are you talking about??

The issue was whether OT animal sacrifices would be reinstated.

OK. I seem to recall that there may be some sacrifices in the Millennium but they are not OT sacrifices.

They won't. They would desecrate Calvary.

I see. "Most premillennial scholars agree that the purpose of animal sacrifice during the millennial kingdom is memorial in nature"

"
There are several passages in the Old Testament that clearly indicate animal sacrifice will be re-instituted during the millennial kingdom. Some passages mention it in passing as the topic of the millennial kingdom is discussed, passages like Isaiah 56:6-8; Zechariah 14:16; and Jeremiah 33:15-18.

The passage that is the most extensive, giving the greatest detail, is Ezekiel 43:18-46:24. It should be noted that this is part of a greater passage dealing with the millennial kingdom, a passage that begins with Ezekiel 40. In Ezekiel 40, the Lord begins to give details of the temple that will exist during the millennial kingdom, a temple that dwarfs all other temples previously built, even Herod’s temple that was quite large, which existed during the earthly ministry of Christ.

After giving details concerning the size and appearance of the temple and the altar, the Lord then begins to give detailed instruction as to the animal sacrifices that will be offered (Ezekiel 43:18-27). In chapter 44, the Lord gives instructions as to who will be offering sacrifices to the Lord. The Lord states that all of the Levites will not be offering blood and fat to the Lord due to previous sin; it will be those from the lineage of Zadok (verse 15). Chapters 45 and 46 continue to mention that animal sacrifices will be made."

Will there be animal sacrifices during the millennial kingdom? | GotQuestions.org

Will there be animal sacrifices during the millennial kingdom? If Christ’s sacrifice was perfect and sufficient, why would animals need to be sacrificed during the millennium?

www.gotquestions.org

Your contention this will desecrate Calvary is opposite of what it will do.

 

[covenantee]

So God doesn't really gather Israel from all over the world and restore them to the land? Why did He say He would six ways from Sunday? You overrule God?

God's New Testament offers no land to Israel.

"Most premillennial scholars agree that the purpose of animal sacrifice during the millennial kingdom is memorial in nature"

They are more than memorial. They are expiatory. And they are transcended and superseded by Hebrews 10:9-12.

Ezekiel 43
19 And thou shalt give to the priests the Levites that be of the seed of Zadok, which approach unto me, to minister unto me, saith the Lord God, a young bullock for a sin offering.

Ezekiel 44
27 And in the day that he goeth into the sanctuary, unto the inner court, to minister in the sanctuary, he shall offer his sin offering, saith the Lord God.

Ezekiel 45
19 And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering, and put it upon the posts of the house, and upon the four corners of the settle of the altar, and upon the posts of the gate of the inner court.

 

[n2thelight]

"So begins this mass illusion war on terror alibi, what's the use when the god of confusion keeps on telling the same lie"

 

[Zao is life]

For over 200 years, the Protestant reformers had been proving from scripture and from history that the papal church of Rome was the Antichrist, the man of sin, and the little horn of Daniel 7. As a result of this, the Catholic Church was leaking members and financial support like a burst water balloon. Rome needed an answer. Previously, they would meet such a challenge head on, through war and threats against secular rulers. In this case however, the stampede towards protestant truth required more. So Rome called what was later known as the council of Trent.
At this council they affirmed Catholic teaching, that tradition was of equal authority as scripture. They compromised on nothing, but still couldn't find an answer to the fast growing protestant movement, until the Jesuits provided it. They had to change the manner in which prophecy was interpreted. The reformers were historicist, just as were many of the church communities before them, such as the Waldenses and Cathars (Albigenses) and the Celtic church in Britain.
Enter Francisco (Franciscus) Ribera, a Spanish Jesuit priest (1537–1591) who is widely regarded as the key early futurist Jesuit commentator on Revelation. Ribera was a Jesuit from Spain who taught at the University of Salamanca and wrote a large commentary on Revelation around 1585–1590. His commentary argued that most of Revelation (after the early chapters) refers not to church history, but to a short, literal period (about three and a half years) immediately before the Second Coming.
Ribera was more of a writer than a lecturer. He also died at the early age of 54. For these reasons, Ribera’s views needed a shrewd and articulate champion to carry his message far and wide. The champion was found and his name was Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621).
Bellarmine was an Italian cardinal and also one of the ablest Jesuit
controversialists. He was a powerful speaker and lectured to large audiences. Bellarmine picked up where Ribera left off. In fact, Bellarmine made it his special project to spread the literalistic hermeneutic of futurism with unabated passion.
“He insisted that the prophecies concerning Antichrist in Daniel, Paul, and John, had no application to the papal power. This formed the third part of his Disputationes de Controversiis Christianae Fidei Adversus Huius Temporis Haereticos [Polemic Lectures Concerning the Disputed Points of Christian Belief Against the Heretics of This Time], published between 1581 and 1593. This was the most detailed apology of the Catholic faith ever produced, and became the arsenal for all future defenders and expositors. It called forth a host of counter-writings from Protestant leaders, who considered him their greatest adversary.” (Froom, PFF, II, p. 495).
Though the basics of Bellarmine’s prophetic views were identical to Ribera’s, he “perfected”, “refined” and amplified many of the details. And he crusaded in favor of the literalistic futurist view and against the Protestants with an evangelistic zeal worthy of admiration!
Bellarmine was an expert at turning the Reformers against themselves. For example, he wondered why Luther, who taught that his views were based on Scripture alone, doubted the canonicity of the book of Revelation. In contrast, Bellarmine appeared to be the defender of the book of Revelation as part of the New Testament canon.
He also took painstaking efforts to document the fact that the Reformers could not even agree among themselves as to when the prophetic periods began and ended. For example, some Protestants dated the beginning of the dominion of the Antichrist from the fall of Rome (400 A. D.). Others dated it to 600 A. D., when Pope Gregory the Great took the papal throne, and still others dated it to somewhere between 200 and 773, 1,000, or even 1,200. Bellarmine contended that if the Reformers could not agree on the time period of Antichrist’s dominion, neither could they be trusted to identify who he was. Bellarmine also documented that the Early Church fathers (not the New Testament writers!!) taught an individual Antichrist who would rule for a literal three and a half year period. In this way he tried to prove that his view was the original belief of the Early Church. He also showed that each of the Reformers interpreted Daniel and Revelation’s symbols differently. In this way he worked to undermine their views regarding the identity of the Antichrist.
In chapter five of his work, Bellarmine employed an argument which would later be picked up by Protestants. There, Bellarmine rewrote history, saying that the Roman Empire had never been divided according to the specifications of the prophecy and therefore, Antichrist could not have come yet. According to Bellarmine, the complete desolation of the Roman Empire must come before the advent of the Antichrist, and this had not yet taken place. It turned out later that a host of Protestant writers picked up this argument and “ran with it”.
The essence of Bellarmine’s argument is that the Papacy cannot be the Antichrist for three reasons:
1. The Antichrist prophecies call for an individual but the Papacy is a system.
2. The Antichrist time periods demand a literal three and one half years, but the Papacy has existed for centuries.
3. Antichrist is to sit in the Jerusalem Temple, but the popes are ruling in Rome.
Let’s allow Bellarmine to tell us these things in his own words:
“For all Catholics think thus that the Antichrist will be one certain man; but all heretics teach. . . that Antichrist is expressly declared to be not a single person, but an individual throne or absolute kingdom, and apostate seat of those who rule over the church.”
(Quoted in Froom, PFF, II, p. 500).
“Antichrist will not reign except for three years and a half. But the Pope has now reigned spiritually in the church more than 1500 years; nor can anyone be pointed out who has been accepted for Antichrist, who has ruled exactly three and one-half years; therefore the Pope is not Antichrist. Then Antichrist has not yet come. (Quoted in Froom, PFF, II, p. 502).
“The Pope is not antichrist since indeed his throne is not in Jerusalem, nor in the temple of Solomon; surely it is credible that from the year 600, no Roman pontiff has ever been in Jerusalem.”
(Quoted in Froom, PFF, II, p. 502).
The above teachings were later picked up by catholic leaning Protestants such as Samuel Maitland, James Todd, William Burgh, John Darby of the Plymouth Brethren, and the renowned John Henry Newman. Then through the Schofield Bible these Jesuit lies and deceptions, all invented to destroy Protestantism, ended up in the Dallas Theological Seminary, and the rest is history.

Futurism is the principle cause and motivation behind the current war against Iran and the wholesale unconditional support for Israel. All on delusion and Jesuit deception designed, successfully, to take the teeth out of protestant scriptural authority.
How you may wonder? Through the lie, invented by Ribera and later refined by Bellarmine, that the temple, spoken of in 2 Thess.2, must be a third temple expected by the dispensation people today to be built and that it is essential to Christ's second coming. Nearly all evangelical and charismatic preachers teach this, and they are all wrong. And what's more, they are responsible for deceiving multitudes and turning the attention of sincere well meaning Christians away from true Protestantism and the biblically affirmed teaching of the reformers and their almost fanatical focus on Israel as the center of end time prophecy, when in reality the focus ought to be on the United States.

All of futurism is built on the false premise of a future physical temple in Jerusalem. It is a curious blindness that those who promote this teaching cannot see within the very verse they use as the basis for it, declares the reason why it is untenable. Paul calls this temple, whatever you want to believe it may be whether physical or spiritual, the temple of God. Paul clearly and succinctly declares the temple as God's own temple. A dwelling place for His presence. That one single profound statement renders the entire Jesuit and now modern Protestant belief in a third temple built by either apostate Jews or the Antichrist himself, as a satanic inspired deception. And now there's a war being waged on those false grounds.

I'm not even American and it's clear as day to me that the current war on Iran is based solely upon the Trump admin's wisdom to know who their enemies are and who their friends are, and when it's time to stop their enemies from becoming too powerful for the USA to be able to prevent them from hurting the USA really badly.

IMO it has nothing to do with the religious or eschatological beliefs of either Catholics or Protestants. Trump, Rubio, Vance, & Hegseth are not idiots. It's solely common sense - which is more than anyone can say for all the post-Thatcher governments in the U.K, unfortunately. People like me sleep easier at night knowing who's currently in charge in the USA.

This thread is in the eschatology board otherwise normally I would say nothing about the USA's wars.

 

[Zao is life]

Jesus made it clear that He came to fulfill not destroy the law.

How did Jesus fulfill the law?

Who is the end of the law for righteousness?

Romans 10
4 For Christ is the end [G5056 telos] of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

G 5056 telos
from a primary tello (to set out for a definite point or goal); properly, the point aimed at as a limit, i.e. (by implication) the conclusion of an act or state (termination (literally, figuratively or indefinitely), result (immediate, ultimate or prophetic), purpose); specially, an impost or levy (as paid):--+ continual, custom, end(-ing), finally, uttermost.

John 19
30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished [G5056 telos]: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

How did Jesus fulfill the law, and what did He tell us to do to fulfill the law?

What did Paul say we must do to fulfill the law?

(Jesus did say how He would fulfill the law, and what we must do to fulfill the law)

(Paul did say what we must do to fulfill the law).

Hint:

The answers to the questions are in the New Testament.

PS: The thing about the law is the fact that all our attempts to obey its form - which was written into laws and the 10 commandments - declares us guilty - and under punishment of death - because it shows up the fact that our disobedience is a heart-problem called sin that we were born with.

Hint: The fruit of the Spirit is the fulfillment of the law, but "righteousness" through obedience to it's form = death.

Did Paul say that love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, meekness, self-control are a result of obedience to the form of the law written in the commandments?

Or did he call them the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23)?

Did Jesus say in John 15:4-5 that through obedience to the form of the law written on tablets of stone we will produce "much righteousness", or did He say that those who abide in Him will produce much fruit?

Did Jesus say in John 4:24 that God is a spirit, and the people who worship him must worship him in obedience to the form of the law written as commandments on tablets of stone?

Or did He say that those who worship God must worship Him in spirit and truth?

Are our hearts tablets of stone containing ten commandments that God said in Jeremiah 31:33 He would write His law on?

Tell us, if you know, what did Jesus tell us to do to fulfill the law in John 15:10-14?

What did John say we must do to fulfill the law in John 1 John 3:23-24?

Did Paul say in Romans 13:8-10 we should fulfill the law through obedience to the written form of the law?

What did John and James tell us about what the fruit of the Spirit looks like (1 John 3:17-18, and James 2:15-18, and James 2:1-4)?

What did Peter say we should add to our faith in 2 Peter 1:5-7, and what reason did he give as to why we should add those things to our faith in 2 Peter 1:8?

What do all these things have to do with attempts at obedience to the form of the fruit of the Spirit written in commandments on tablets of stone?

How did Jesus say He was going to fulfill the law in John 15:13?

Did Jesus say in John 15:16 that He had chosen His disciples and ordained them that they could go forth and produce obedience to the form of the law written on tablets of stone, and righteousness through obedience, that their obedience and righteousness should remain?

Or did He say He had chosen them and ordained them that they could go forth and produce fruit and that their fruit should remain?

You ears are no better than the ears of those who do not hear Christ and His apostles because they do not believe what Christ and His apostles said and taught, if you think the fruit of the Spirit comes through obedience to the form of it in the ten commandments written on tablets of stone and the "righteousness" that comes through obedience to the law, and that this is the law that God promised He would write onto hearts of flesh (God did not say He would write the form of His law onto tablets / hearts of stone which are produced by the unbelief that produces faith in, and more attempts at obedience to, that law which kills)

- the reason He promised the New Covenant in Christ's blood is because through their disobedience to the law and the commandments written on tablets of stone they had broken the covenant that was based upon their promise to obey those commandments and that law that Jesus fulfilled, bringing an end to it.

 

[PinSeeker]

Hebrews 9:15-18 clearly describes more the "New Testament" than the "New Covenant". The latter is not effectualized "by means of death".

Okay, well, I disagree. And that's okay.

But... was not God's covenant with Abraham specifically, His... obligatory agreement... with Abraham (the splitting of the animals in Genesis 15) that He, God, would be the one responsible (and punished by blood, death , of course) for both ends of the agreement? Only God walked between the animals, while Abraham, then Abram, of course, slept, right? So yes, and as it happened... Well, you know what happened; Abraham ~ and we, Israel, with Abraham as our progenitor ~ failed, and Jesus paid the price (His lifeblood, death) at Calvary, right?

Grace and peace to you.

 

[covenantee]

Okay, well, I disagree. And that's okay.

Explanation?

But... was not God's covenant with Abraham specifically, His... obligatory agreement... with Abraham (the splitting of the animals in Genesis 15) that He, God, would be the one responsible (and punished by blood, death , of course) for both ends of the agreement? Only God walked between the animals, while Abraham, then Abram, of course, slept, right? So yes, and as it happened... Well, you know what happened; Abraham ~ and we, Israel, with Abraham as our progenitor ~ failed, and Jesus paid the price (His lifeblood, death) at Calvary, right?

Grace and peace to you.

If God was responsible for both ends of the agreement, then Abraham's faith and obedience were irrelevant.

 

[dad]

God's New Testament offers no land to Israel.

The offer preceded the New testament. God is not a liar

They are more than memorial. They are expiatory. And they are transcended and superseded by Hebrews 10:9-12.

That is talking about sacrifices. You should read more contextual verses such as all the promises of God are yea and amen. Or God is not a man that He should lie - etc

 

[PinSeeker]

Explanation?

See above. If you still don't understand... or don't buy it... as I said, that's okay with me. I don't think, like, "just to argue" is your intention, but... it's enough.

If God was responsible for both ends of the agreement, then Abraham's faith and obedience were irrelevant.

Strongly disagree; God knew that Abraham's faith and obedience, like all of ours, would not be perfect. And... we are all in Christ, so in that sense, our faith and obedience is perfect, because Christ was and is. And the Spirit is at work in all of us, conforming us to the image of Christ, which we call the process of sanctification. Come on, covenantee, you know this. But, if you still disagree, well, then, okay. It's okay.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[PinSeeker]

The offer preceded the New testament.

Ah, well, yes and no. The promise of land in God's covenant with Abraham was a type, a shadow, of the real promise, so "lesser" in that sense, and indicative of the greater promise to come. The greater promise of land came in the Person of Jesus Christ, Who said... [in the New Testament, of course... <chuckles>] ...explicitly, "the meek shall inherit the earth" (Matthew 5:5) THAT is the greater land promise... and it really always was. I think you agree...

God is not a liar

Right. <smile> I mean, I don't think anybody here thinks otherwise, but right. <smile>

Grace and peace to you.

 

[dad]

Ah, well, yes and no. The promise of land in God's covenant with Abraham was a type, a shadow, of the real promise, so "lesser" in that sense, and indicative of the greater promise to come.

I am not sure how lands with specific boundaries were a shadow of the promise of salvation for all? They were specific. Also when Jesus returns, a remnant is prophesied to be saved, and then restored to specific lands in a specific way. That is not a shadow of the past and Jesus coming the first time.

The greater promise of land came in the Person of Jesus Christ, Who said... [in the New Testament, of course... <chuckles>] ...explicitly, "the meek shall inherit the earth" (Matthew 5:5) THAT is the greater land promise... and it really always was. I think you agree...

The fact that the meek of all peoples (believers) will inherit the earth does not mean that some of those meek, who are Israel, will not inherit exactly what God says they will.

Right. <smile> I mean, I don't think anybody here thinks otherwise, but right. <smile>

Grace and peace to you.

In other words He will fulfill all of His good promises. Even among the Bride/church we see that some will receive greater rewards and different rewards than others. How is it that Jewish believers in the end cannot receive rewards promised for them? How does that take away from anything other believers will receive?