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

[amigo de christo]

I disagree. Consider that we are not just talking about covenants in general here. Obviously, not all covenants are put into effect by death. But, we're talking about the old and new covenants here. Do you think the following is referring to the first/old covenant and second/new covenant?

Hebrews 8:6 (KJV): 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. 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

How did Jesus establish the better/second/new covenant?

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.

If you agree that Hebrews 8:6-7 are referring to the first/old covenant and the second/new covenant, then you should agree that this passage is also referring to the first/old covenant and second/new covenant. And this passage makes it clear that the second, new covenant was established "through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.". So, the new covenant was effectualized by means of death. So, I disagree with you that "Death is obviously not applicable to a covenant". I am coming to the conclusion that there is just the first/old covenant that was replaced by the better second/new covenant and there is no separate new testament distinct from the new covenant and old testament distinct from the old covenant.

the new covenant the new testament . ITS THE SAME thing . this other fellow is messing things up my friend .
just like many do with the idea there are two gospels , one for the jew and one for the gentile. NOPE its the same GOSPEL
and every single apostel preached it . Just like they preach two kingdoms , kingdom of GOD , Kingdom of heaven .
BUT NOPE ITS THE SAME ONE .
People listen to men way too much that twist things .

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

the new covenant the new testament . ITS THE SAME thing .

Yes, that's what I've been saying.

this other fellow is messing things up my friend .
just like many do with the idea there are two gospels , one for the jew and one for the gentile. NOPE its the same GOSPEL

Well, I wouldn't put this in the same category as claiming there are two gospels. That's a much more serious error than this because it suggests that there is more than one way to be saved, which there clearly is not and never has been.

The English translators translated the same Greek word as both covenant and testament and I think that causes confusion. The more I look at this the more I'm convinced that there isn't a separate new covenant and new testament and separate old covenant and old testament. As I've shown the words "covenant" and "testament" have been translated in the exact same context, so they mean the same thing whenever the "new covenant" or "new testament" are referenced.

and every single apostel preached it . Just like they preach two kingdoms , kingdom of GOD , Kingdom of heaven .
BUT NOPE ITS THE SAME ONE .
People listen to men way too much that twist things .

That's for sure. We see that on this forum over and over again.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

He took away the first -- sacrifices and burnt offerings; to establish the second -- the offering of His Body once for all.

Referring to death, and thus "testament".

Didn't the sacrifices and burnt offerings relate to the old covenant? I'm sure they did, so I'm not sure why you would deny that. But, to you, the first and second refers to the first (old) and second (new) covenants in Hebrews 8:6-7, but to the supposedly separate first (old) and second (new) testaments in Hebrews 10:9-10. I just can't agree with that. I don't see that as being consistent. I am going to just agree to disagree with you about this because I have nothing to add at this point.

 

[covenantee]

Didn't the sacrifices and burnt offerings relate to the old covenant? I'm sure they did, so I'm not sure why you would deny that. But, to you, the first and second refers to the first (old) and second (new) covenants in Hebrews 8:6-7, but to the supposedly separate first (old) and second (new) testaments in Hebrews 10:9-10. I just can't agree with that. I don't see that as being consistent. I am going to just agree to disagree with you about this because I have nothing to add at this point.

They related to the old testament. They required death.

Hebrews 9
18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.
19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,
20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.

The odd rare disagreement won't hurt us, bro.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

They related to the old testament. They required death.

Hebrews 9
18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.
19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,
20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.

This is what caused the translation discussion that I had with PinSeeker. Which translation to trust? You trust the KJV on this, but I don't. So be it.

Hebrews 9: (NKJV) 18 Therefore not even the first covenant was dedicated without blood. 19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20 saying, “This is the blood of the covenant which God has commanded you.”

The odd rare disagreement won't hurt us, bro.

I understand that, but we're just repeating ourselves at this point, so that doesn't seem worth our time.

 

[Davy]

I think I made that point. It is apostate American Protestantism that has embraced Catholic counter Reformation theology and using eschatological delusions (3rd temple, an individual antichrist sitting in that temple etc etc all seen as necessary prerequisites to the second coming) that is greatly motivating the defense of Israel, the money being poured into that work, and the inevitable loss of lives on both sides. The cries of "bless Israel and be blessed, curse and be cursed", etc. By all means, if the US government wants to be an ally to Israel, fine. But what has the church got to do with it? If not for dispensational teaching being so prevalent throughout American culture, and having the ear of the president and advising on foreign policy, would this war be taking shape the way it is?

Man-made rubbish.

 

[dad]

New is better than old. Hebrews 8:13

Treasures new and old are found in Scripture

 

[dad]

Look at the verse which follows that one.

Romans 11:27 “and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins.”

Yes when the remnant of Israel gets saved that is what happens.

It's important to understand that what Paul wrote in Romans 11:26-27 is not a new prophecy given by Paul, but rather an Old Testament prophecy that he referenced from Isaiah 59:20-21. In order to understand what Paul is talking about, we need to determine what covenant he is referring to there. What covenant is the one God made with people that takes away sins? The new covenant.

Looking at a bible commentary it says this about the verses.

" the. Redeemer = a Redeemer: i.e. the Messiah. Quoted in Romans 11:26 , Romans 11:27 , showing that the fullness of the Gentiles must be the fullness of the Gentile times.

to = for: i.e. on behalf of. See note on Romans 11:26 .

return to 'Top of Page'

Verse 21​

for ever. This coming deliverance for Israel will be final, and cannot therefore as yet have taken place."

Isaiah 59 - Bullinger's Companion Bible Notes - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org

Isaiah 59, Bullinger's Companion Bible Notes, Bullinger's Companion Bible Notes enrich Christian understanding with deep insights into Scripture's original texts and historical context.

www.studylight.org

Matthew 26:28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

All believers, Jew and Gentile, are saved and have their sins taken away under the new covenant. So, just because the prophecy specifically mentions Jacob, that doesn't mean Gentiles are not included as being under that same covenant to have their sins taken away as well.

Some phrases and key words in prophesy clue us in about what is being talked about. Jacob usually refers to a certain people.

That Gentile believers would be fellow citizens and fellow heirs with Jewish believers was a mystery in Old Testament times, but not in New Testament times. Paul described an Israel in Romans 9:6-8 which consists of those who are the children of God and of the promise and are the seed of Abraham spiritually and not because of being his physical descendants.

Romans 9:6
Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
Romans 9:7
Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
Romans 9:8
That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

Verse 6 is talking about Israel (how the unbelievers are not really part of it) verse 7 confirms it by talking about the seed of Abraham. And verse 8 points out that of these people (Israel, the seed of Abraham) it is only believers that are actually the seed. This was not talking about all believers in general, but Israel

All believers, Jew and Gentile, are the children of God and of the promise and are counted as Abraham's spiritual seed (Galatians 3:26-29), so all believers are part of the Israel of which all are and all will be saved.

Galatians 3:14
That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

We are all one (Greeks, Jews, rich, poor etc) in Jesus. - Saved. That does not mean that we are all the remnant of Israel in the end that God saves and restores to the land.

 

[covenantee]

Treasures new and old are found in Scripture

Your treasures are old, decayed, and vanished. Hebrews 8:13

 

[dad]

Your treasures are old, decayed, and vanished. Hebrews 8:13

heaven and earth will pass away, but Jesus said my words will never pass away. Never decay. Never vanish. There is more chance of the earth vanishing than one jot or tittle of prophesy not happening.

 

[covenantee]

This is what caused the translation discussion that I had with PinSeeker. Which translation to trust? You trust the KJV on this, but I don't. So be it.

Hebrews 9: (NKJV) 18 Therefore not even the first covenant was dedicated without blood. 19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20 saying, “This is the blood of the covenant which God has commanded you.”


I understand that, but we're just repeating ourselves at this point, so that doesn't seem worth our time.

Hebrews 9: (NKJV) 18 Therefore not even the first covenant was dedicated without blood. 19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20 saying, “This is the blood of the covenant which God has commanded you.”

A covenant is a bi-directional agreement between two parties.

Obviously that doesn't apply to the passage above, which is why the KJV used "testament".

The NKJV is also inconsistent with Hebrews 9:15-20, interspersing "testament" and "covenant", when it is clear that the entire passage is "testament".

And in Matthew 26:28 and all of its synoptics, the NKJV uses "covenant" when the context is unquestionably "testament".

 

[covenantee]

heaven and earth will pass away, but Jesus said my words will never pass away. Never decay. Never vanish. There is more chance of the earth vanishing than one jot or tittle of prophesy not happening.

Was the old covenant Jesus' words?

 

[Davy]

What Really Is Happening, BIBLICALLY, With the Palestinian vs. Israel Conflict:

First one must know a bit of history of how things got like they are today in the holy land.

1.
After the unbelieving Jews rejected Lord Jesus Christ and The Gospel in Jerusalem, and had Lord Jesus crucified, Jesus told them their house would then be left desolate (Luke 13:35). Then in 70 A.D., God brought the Roman army upon those Jews led by the Roman general Titus, and destroyed Jerusalem, and the temple, and scattered the Jews out of the holy land.

The unbelieving Jews then roamed through the nations like gypsies, being cast out of Christian nations because of how they operated, and refusing to convert to Jesus Christ. They kept their Israelite heritage which God had prophesied, which is why they were so controversial among the nations. And they still looked to return to their original homeland, the lands in the middle east where Palestinians had by then taken over completely for centuries.

Philistia (Palestine) existed on the Gaza strip only (coastal side west of Israel), which the Palestinians dwelt there even during the height of the old kingdom of Israel. So the Palestinians do have a 2,000+ year history in that land, even though ever so small compared to all the territory which God had given the children of Israel to conquer from the Canaanites, Hitites, Amorites, Jebusites, etc. Palestine today claims also the territories east that border the Jordan river, but those lands originally were given to Israel to conquer when they first crossed into the land of Canaan when crossing the Jordan, and they were part of the old kingdom of Israel under David and Solomon.

Since the unbelieving Jews were cast out of the holy land, they have since wanted to return, and re-establish old covenant worship with a stone temple, which the orthodox Jews even to this day believe they are still bound to by God. They still reject Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah, and instead are waiting for their Messiah's coming to rule as King of Israel. They understand how God per His Word had promised the holy lands to their fathers and their children, so they are not going to ever be deterred away from giving up those lands.

2.
In 1917 the world stage started changing for the scattered Jews. The British government issued the Balfour Declaration declaring a national homeland for the Jews in Palestine. It was delivered to Zionists in Great Britain and Ireland. Jews had crept into the British government in order to create these declarations in favor of the Jews (See Herbert Samuel, Lord Rothschild). WWI had begun in 1914, and Britain had taken control of Jerusalem from the Ottoman Turks. So this plan for a national homeland for the Jews was already on the drawing board during WWI by Britain. More Jews starting returning to the holy land setting up temporary shelter. During the WWII holocaust a huge flood of Jews returned which is no doubt when the Palestinian Arabs saw the potential of their population dwindling compared to the number of Jews coming into the lands.

Britain at that time supported the Jews coming into the holy land, giving them more territory than the Palestinians, even though the Jews were a minority population at that time. This is when the fighting started between the Jews and Arabs over the land. The Arabs had been in those lands for centuries, and they certainly were not going to give up the land either, even though the majority of it originally had been given the children of Israel by God.

The fighting got out of Britain's control, so Britain's military left the holy land. Savage massacres by both the Jews and the Arabs would happen upon innocent peoples on both sides. Then in 1947 the United Nations stepped in and created an Israeli state, and divided up the territories, giving the Arabs control of part of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount. To this day the U.N. controls the land borders for both groups.

3.
Both the Arabs and the Jews tend to blame Great Britain for creating this situation, but that is not a fair assumption, simply because political Jews within the government of Britain had a strong hand in creating the Zionist documents and political meetings initiated within the British government. The truth of the matter is that the Jews were behind it all along, yet, we still have to consider their operations were moved by a higher source, God Who had previously promised Israel those lands from the river Nile all the way to the border of the Euphrates river (Gen.15:18-21).

4.
At the same time, a deep-seated jealousy within the Arab population exists against Israel. The Arabs are descendants of Ishmael, the first son of Abraham but with the hand-maiden Hagar, the servant of Abraham's wife Sarah. God had promised Abraham that His covenant and Birthright would be established with Abraham's son from him and his wife Sarah, not with the bondservant Hagar who was of Egyptian heritage.

When Hagar had Ishmael, she became haughty acting in front of Sarah, because a married woman that was without child was seen as cursed in that time. Sarah asked her husband Abraham to cast Hagar out, and he did. Hagar left with her son Ishmael into the wilderness, and prayed. God promised Hagar that her son would be the father of 12 kings of his peoples, and it was so.

Thus Ishmael became jealous of Abraham's son Isaac, to whom God's Birthright covenants would fall upon; even to this day that jealousy over God's Birthright is preached among the Islamic clerics to the Arab peoples. The Birthright is supposed to go to the 'firstborn' son. The Arabs see Ishmael as the rightful 'firstborn', simply because he was the very first son of Abraham. They do not recognize God's Promise to Abraham though, that His Covenant would be with the son of Abraham and Sarah. So ultimately, the Islamic clerics drive the Arab peoples to fight against Jews over jealousy of God's Birthright, and not just over the lesser history of the land. There are Islamic clerics living today that recognize the Jews have always had their temple standing in the holy land. Those Islamic clerics well know the history of the majority of the land originally belonged to the children of Israel after God had led them across the Jordan river into Canaan, and to wipe out the specific nations He commanded them in Deuteronomy 20:10-18.

 

[Davy]

Continued...

So if our Heavenly Father is behind all this turmoil in the middle east between Jews and Arabs, then what's the reason? Believe it or not, He told us the reason, in His Word.

It is to create a chaos in prep for the entering of the coming pseudo-Christ at Jerusalem who will play The Christ, and with great signs and miracles will deceive the whole world into believe he is God, except for Christ's elect who will not be deceived.

The evil basket of figs returned to Jerusalem with Judah after the Babylon captivity specifically for the purpose of making sure Lord Jesus was crucified, and eventually at the end of this world, for the setting up of 'their' "king of the world" in place of our Lord Jesus Christ, at Jerusalem.

Likewise the situational conflict in the middle east is designed to draw whole nations into the squabble that will support Islam's future attack with coming upon Israel on the "day of the Lord", the day Lord Jesus will return to gather His Church. That attack we already know will be backed by Communist Russia (See Ezekiel 38 with the Hebrew for "chief", which is Ro'sh, an old word for Rus, which is an old pointer to Russia. And we already know military weapons and training is being supplied to the Arabs by Russia and Red China.)

So how does Russia fit into all this? Atheistic Russia (not Christians there), represents brother Esau who profaned God's Birthright for a bowl of beans. He treated his Birthright as wares to be sold or traded. Thus his actual blessing from his father Isaac was away from the best things and best land, of which points to the lack of production Russia suffers because of its location so far north. The Russian economy even today could not exist without the help of the richer nations in the Christian West. And Esau, against his parents wishes, took wives of both the Canaanites, and of Ishamel. Thus Esau's (Russia) connection with today's Arabs.

 

[dad]

Was the old covenant Jesus' words?

Is not Jesus God?

 

[covenantee]

Is not Jesus God?

Yes, Jesus is God.

Does Jesus disprove Hebrews 8:13?

 

[dad]

Is not the old covenant vanished?

Promises are not an old covenant. They are everlasting contracts with no expiry date.

 

[Brakelite]

This war is to subdue an enemy who has attacked us and our ally nearly a half century. What more reason does there need to be?

"You're only defending yourself because of your eschatology"? I don't think that's what is happening.

Much love!

Ibelieve the US is focused on defending Israel because of eschatology. The cry coming the evangelical and charismatic/pentecostal majority in America is fairly strident.
People are being called racist and homophobic if they are calling for tougher immigration policies and are anti-alphabet and woke liberalism. Right? But what's the difference when others are accused of being racist because they don't support Zionism. Or accused of being anti-semetic. Same old accusations that were thrown about at "vaccine" rejecters.

Man-made rubbish.

Yeah well. It's happening, whether you like it or not. An image of the papal beast being erected in the US under your nose and you can't see it. When they start legislating worship and persecuting those who refuse to honor Sunday, will you understand then or join in the fun?

 

[covenantee]

Promises are not an old covenant. They are everlasting contracts with no expiry date.

Does Jesus disprove Hebrews 8:13?

 

[Brakelite]

Promises are not an old covenant. They are everlasting contracts with no expiry date.

And yet the old covenant was broken. The new covenant was given based on better promises. Heb.8:6 What poor promises were they, who made them, and who broke the covenant and how?
God does keep His promises. But they are not unconditional, as the above proves. The conditions to receiving the promises are.....