Christians are not under the New Covenant

[Ronald Nolette]

The new covenant, prophetically stated at Jeremiah 31:31-34, replaced the Mosaic Law covenant that was in force for over 1,500 years and that was "a guardian leading to the Christ, so that we might be declared righteous through faith." (Gal 3:24)

The apostle Paul then said: "But now that the faith has arrived, we are no longer under a guardian (or Mosaic Law)."(Gal 3:24) But what is the "new covenant" ? The King James Bible obscures Jesus words at Luke 22:28-30, in which the King James Bible reads: "Ye (or Jesus eleven faithful apostles) are they which have continued with me in my temptations. And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me. That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

But a more accurate Bible reads: "However, you are the ones who have stuck with me in my trials; and I make a covenant (Greek diatheke) with you, just as my Father has made a covenant with me, for a kingdom, so that you may (symbolically) eat and drink at my table in my Kingdom, and sit on thrones to judge the (symbolic) 12 tribes of Israel."(New World Translation)

What Jesus said is about the new covenant, ' a covenant for a kingdom ' or heavenly government, that Jesus spoke of some 100 times during his ministry.(see Matt 6:9, 10; Matt 13; Luke 8:1) Just as the Mosaic Law covenant that was established with the nation of Israel in 1513 B.C.E. was validated or made legal by blood, the blood of animals (Ex 24:3-8), so likewise of the new covenant, in which Jesus perfect shed blood was the means of validation.(Luke 22:19, 20; 1 Cor 11:25; Heb 9:12; Note: the King James Bible reads "new testament" at Luke 22:20, which is inaccurate, for Jesus used the Greek word diatheke [meaning "a disposition, specially a contract"] that means "covenant", as at Luke 1:72 and not the Greek word marturia [meaning "evidence given"] that means "testimony", as at Mark 14:55, in which the King James Bible reads as "council")

The apostle Paul speaks of the new covenant at Hebrews 8, quoting from Jeremiah 31, saying: "If that first covenant (or Mosaic Law covenant) had been faultless, there would have been no need for a second. For he does find fault with the people when he says: “‘Look ! The days are coming,’ says Jehovah, ‘when I will make with the (symbolic) house of Israel and with the (symbolic) house of Judah a new covenant. It will not be like the covenant that I made with their forefathers on the day I took hold of their hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, because they did not remain in my covenant, so I stopped caring for them,’ says Jehovah."(Heb 8:7-9)

Paul now says: "For this is the covenant that I will make with the (symbolic) house of Israel (or "Israel of God", Gal 6:16, or spiritual Israel, that make up God's heavenly Kingdom, that is composed of both Jew and Gentile, see Rom 11:11) after those days,’ says Jehovah. ‘I will put my laws in their mind, and in their hearts I will write them. And I will become their God, and they will become my people. And they will no longer teach each one his fellow citizen and each one his brother, saying: “Know Jehovah !” For they will all know me, from the least to the greatest of them. For I will be merciful toward their unrighteous deeds, and I will no longer call their sins to mind. In his saying “a new covenant,” he has made the former one (or Mosaic Law covenant) obsolete. Now what is obsolete and growing old is near to vanishing away."(Heb 8:10-13)

Unlike the Mosaic Law covenant that was a code of some 600 laws written down, the "new covenant" and its laws are "in their mind, and in their hearts", so that those who make up God's Kingdom of 144,001 (Jesus being the "one", with the rest being 144,000 imperfect but loyal individuals chosen by Jehovah, 2 Thess 2:13; Rev 7:4), are able to grasp what Jehovah loves and what he hates, teaching sincere individuals what the Bible really teaches.(Matt 28:19, 20)

All this verbage to spout the same old lies!

1. THE NWT is not a better translation, it is not even a good paraphrase!
2. The Watchtower rewrites scripture and you abet them in this when you say Israel becomes symbolic.
3. If the writer in Hebrews 8 is speaking symbolically as you allege, then you have to say that the church (Jew and Gentile) was also the recipients of the old covenant and that is a lie against the truth!
4. As we have learned there have been dozens of sects and cults that just love to symbolize Gods Word to advance their own private interpretations!
5. If you cannot take god's Word as he wrote it and inspired it, why should I take your word as literal and not symbolically reinterpret it????

 

[Moriah's Song]

What does a mediator do?

See post #516....or are you avoiding it as if it might prove you to be wrong?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

2Th 2:4..."...who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.(temple = Greek "naos" = spiritual temple/not a literal temple at all. If this word "temple" was intended to be a "literal" temple, the Greek word "hieron" would have been used.)

You are very very wrong. "Naos" is the word for temple specifically :heiron" is defined as sacred place and that is not restricted to a temple! There is a real "naos" in heaven right now! Their is also a heiron. Jeus taught in the heiron. He did not speak in the temple specifically, but in the courts of the temple which is heiron. A simple concordance would show this out.

And when naos is used metaphorically it means the church where God dwells. So, you have Stan indwelling the people of God! Or better yet, instead of having to rely on a man to tell you when these are literal or metaphorical, one should read the bible in its natural normal sense and take each word at its normal meaning unless context demands otherwise. The antichrist will sit in the holy place declaring himself He is god! How do you know if all the allegorical reinterpretation is what god meant? Others have come up with different answers with their allegorical reinterpretations. Why is yours right and theirs wrong? Why should we take your words literally when you don't take god's word literally?

YOu should go to Israel and view the blueprints, scale model of the temple to be built. You should go see the ephods, temple tools. YOu should go to Hebrew UNiversity and see Levites being taught sacrifical rites.

YOu need to explain why the physical temple is defined as both naos and heiron in Scripture. Now is symbolic. and if the church is the temple of god now why Satan is not possessing all believers, unless you have another temple of God you haven't revealed yet.

 

[Moriah's Song]

You are very very wrong. "Naos" is the word for temple specifically :heiron" is defined as sacred place and that is not restricted to a temple!

#1 - your version of "naos" and "hieron" are the exact opposite of what you posted. Hieron was where Jesus taught - the courtyards where the people would be able to hear what he had to say.
#2- Naos is the area inside the temple sanctuary where the High Priest was only permitted to go. (And I think that might only be on special feast days) Jesus did not go into the "naos" area because he would have violated the Levitical law that prohibited common people to go into for fear of death. Yet he fulfilled that role as Hight Priest upon his death and resurrection - just as he fulfilled all other OT prophecies about himself, including the Jeremiah 31 prophesy. (which I take it that you must have realized you have it all wrong and refuse to admit it.)

 

[Moriah's Song]

YOu need to explain why the physical temple is defined as both naos and heiron in Scripture. Now is symbolic. and if the church is the temple of god now why Satan is not possessing all believers, unless you have another temple of God you haven't revealed yet.

And you need to explain why it is that you chose to avoid post #516 after posting your thoughts on the "New Covenant" and "mediator" of which I responded to. (And I am NOT A LIAR!)

 

[Ronald Nolette]

(b) "one who acts as a guarantee" so as to secure something which otherwise would not be obtained. Thus in Hbr 8:6; 9:15; 12:24 Christ is the Surety of "the better covenant," "the new covenant," guaranteeing its terms for His people.

WADR to Vines which I respect- they stretched the word "mesites" beyond any lawful use! In Hebrews 7:22 jesus is called the surety of a better covenant and the proper word for surety 'engyos" is uses. thesde words are not synonymous.

Job 33:23...If there be for him an angel, a mediator, one of the thousand, to declare to man what is right for him; (RSV)
Job 9:33-34...If only there were a mediator between us, someone who could bring us together. The mediator could make God stop beating me, and I would no longer live in terror of his punishment. (NLT)

Isa 42:6..."I, the LORD, officially commission you; I take hold of your hand. I protect you and make you a covenant mediator for people, and a light to the nations,
Isa 49:8...This is what the LORD says: "At the time I decide to show my favor, I will respond to you; in the day of deliverance I will help you; I will protect you and make you a covenant mediator for people, to rebuild the land and to reassign the desolate property.

Gal 3:19-20... Why, then, was the law given? It was given alongside the promise to show people their sins. But the law was designed to last only until the coming of the child who was promised. God gave his law through angels to Moses, who was the mediator between God and the people. Now a mediator is helpful if more than one party must reach an agreement. But God, who is one, did not use a mediator when he gave his promise to Abraham. (NLT)

1Ti 2:5...For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

and in all these cases teh word mediate is used as it is defined in all languages! One who acts as a go between between two or more parties. And in all understanding across all lnaguages and cultures- when something is being mediated it is not settled yet. One or more parties have not agreed to teh terms. In the case of the New Covenant as written by God, God is settled, but not all the house of Judah and Israel are settled.

In other things Jesus is a mediator. Everytime the word mediator appears, I hope you are aware that it is not always concerning teh NewCovenant. Jesus is our mediator, mediating between man and the Father on our behalf on account of our sin. In another place He is called our advocate. But that is totally separate from the New Covenant God made to Israel.

Jeremiah 31:31-34
King James Version

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:

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.

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.

YOu have to com eup with all tehsdew complicated, obtuse and allegorical opinions to fit the simply New covenant as written and force it to apply to the church! That is not any sound exegesis, and even lousy eisegesis.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

See post #516....or are you avoiding it as if it might prove you to be wrong?

Answered so your ad-hominem is irrelavent.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

#1 - your version of "naos" and "hieron" are the exact opposite of what you posted. Hieron was where Jesus taught - the courtyards where the people would be able to hear what he had to say.
#2- Naos is the area inside the temple sanctuary where the High Priest was only permitted to go. (And I think that might only be on special feast days) Jesus did not go into the "naos" area because he would have violated the Levitical law that prohibited common people to go into for fear of death. Yet he fulfilled that role as Hight Priest upon his death and resurrection - just as he fulfilled all other OT prophecies about himself, including the Jeremiah 31 prophesy. (which I take it that you must have realized you have it all wrong and refuse to admit it.)

That is exactly what I said! Why you read it differently is beyond me. Please go back and reread my post #523.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

And you need to explain why it is that you chose to avoid post #516 after posting your thoughts on the "New Covenant" and "mediator" of which I responded to. (And I am NOT A LIAR!)

Please read my post #526. It answers the relavent parts.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

And you need to explain why it is that you chose to avoid post #516 after posting your thoughts on the "New Covenant" and "mediator" of which I responded to. (And I am NOT A LIAR!)

Can you show which post # I called you a liar! I called Robert Gwyn one, but then again He is vomiting JW doctrine. I went back three pages and never once saw teh word liar or any synonyms used ini describing you.

 

[Moriah's Song]

WADR

I have no idea what you mean by that.

 

[Moriah's Song]

My quote in post #490....Denying that the New Covenant is for us; the Body of Christ, the church, is tantamount to denying the blood of Christ and the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit.

As for your last statement, that is nothing more than an arrogant lie!

Nor did I say that you are unsaved! I do not know that; only God knows that. I posted a truth from scripture; not an accusation or judgement.

Anyone who denies the New Covenant is for us; the Body of Christ, the church, is tantamount to denying the blood of Christ and the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit.

That is an absolute fact of which I have provided ample proof of through many verses of which you are so deep into dispensationalism that you don't have the "ears to hear" truth when it is presented to you. Instead you result to insulting people.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

I have no idea what you mean by that.

Lol. It stands for With All Due Respect. WADR.

 

[Moriah's Song]

"Naos" (the inner sanctua is the word for temple specifically

# 1 of the sketch, the "Holy of Holies," is the only area that the High Priest was entitled to enter and I believe that it was only once a year. All other areas of the sketch is referred to as "the temple." Jesus taught on those steps just in front of #8 where the Court of the women/Gentiles could gather to hear Jesus teach."Hieron" refers to the temple "enclosure"... the outer walls and the #'s 12,13, 14, 15.

See the temple sketch in the following post)

 

[Moriah's Song]

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I have no idea what you mean by that.

with all due respect.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

# 1 of the sketch, the "Holy of Holies," is the only area that the High Priest was entitled to enter and I believe that it was only once a year. All other areas of the sketch is referred to as "the temple." Jesus taught on those steps just in front of #8 where the Court of the women/Gentiles could gather to hear Jesus teach."Hieron" refers to the temple "enclosure"... the outer walls and the #'s 12,13, 14, 15.

See the temple sketch in the following post)

1,2.3. are the temple proper, the rest are heiron or sacred places that were also called the temple, but inn Jewish reckoning were not the temple proper.

I would recommend you to A Eddersheims: "The Temple" and "Life and times of Jesus the Messiah" and A. Fruchtenbaums : Life of the Messiah from a Hebrew Perspective. All three are very very rich with the history of the temple and how Jews referred to each part both formally and informally.

Naos is only used of the holy place and the holy of holies, while heiron can and does refer to the rest of the temple almost exclusively except when referring to the church.

 

[Curtis]

the church is the new Israel
Christ replaced david as king
The kingdom taken from Israel matt 21:43 given to the church Isa 22:21-22 matt 16:18-19
The church replaced Israel

Absolutely wrong.

The new covenant is with the HOUSE of Israel.

Salvation came to gentiles to make Israel jealous.

Believers who are gentiles are grafted into the new covenant with the house of Israel.

It’s mediated by the Jewish Messiah, Y'eshua

He will reign in Jerusalem on David’s throne, forever, as prophesied in both the old and new testaments.

Gentiles and jews who are the redeemed, will be in the kingdom with Jesus.

 

[Moriah's Song]

A. Fruchtenbaums

Fruchtenbaum graduated with a Master of Theology degree from Dallas Theological Seminary. (Wikipedia)

Now I can see how you are so deeply embeded with dispensationalism to the degree you are unable to comprehend the truth that the New Covenant was instituted first to the Jewish 11 disciples at the Last Supper and became a reality after the blood of Christ was shed on the cross. Dallas Theological Seminary and Gordon Seminary are cesspools for unwary individuals that are taken in by the mass producing books, Hal Lindsays "The Late Great Planet Earth" and cesspool of TV preachers like Pat Robinson promoting the false theory of dispensationalism that originiated in England back in the early 1800's. It was Dallas Theo. Sem. and C.I. Scofield who saw a potential to get rich through Moody Publishing Co. order to make them rich and famous - all for the purpose of promoting dispensationalism which denies the New Covenant that originated for Christian believers to this day.

That New Covenant, which you totally reject, would never have been a reality for us Christian believers today had it not been for Christs' shed blood for us. If you look back at the Siani Mosaic Covenant you will see that Moses threw blood onto "his people" that represeted exactly what Jesus would do for us on the cross. Biblical covenants required blood. At the institution of the NC at the last supper, wine represented Christs' blood that would bring last and only Covenant into Chritianity.

When Peter preached his Pentecostal sermon to the multitude of Jews that were in Jerusalem for the feast 3,000 Jews repented and were baptized. For those to say that the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31 was not fulfilled in the Jewish/Christian believers of Israel and Judah, they are severly mistaken as the book of Acts clearly reveals the truth that Jesus brought the House of Israel and the House of Judah todgether as prophesied!

Jesus said..."I have fulfilled all that the Father has given me." Do you get that word "all?" That included the Jeremiah 31 prophesy that Frutchenbaum and Darby and all the other promoters of dispensationalism denies that Jesus did was the Father told him to do. That is tatamount to being a "false prophet" according to scripture.

To say that the Jews did not have the privilege of being the first to believe in the NC is an outright lie as the following verses indicate....and I did not even post those Jews and Gentiles that Paul brought to Christ ---- all being taught the New Covenant for them at the time.

Act 2:41 - So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.
Act 2:47 - "...And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.
Act 4:4 - But many of those who heard the word believed; and the number of the men came to about five thousand.
Act 5:14 - And more than ever believers were added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women,
Act 6:7 - And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith.
Act 8:6 - And the multitudes with one accord gave heed to what was said by Philip,...​

Nowhere in Pauls writings does he say anything about the "not now" NC for those Jewish/Christian converts. Instead Paul taught the exact opposite.

PAUL taught the NEW COVENANT in (correction: 2 Cor. 3:6)

[Christ] "who has made us competent to be ministers
of a new covenant,
not in a written code but in the Spirit; ..."​

The New Covenant is at the very heart of Christianity. To dismiss and deny that Christs' blood was not shed for it and that it was for the Jews sometime in the future, could have serious consequences to it.

"...and you show that you are a letter from Christ delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts." (c-reference -- Jer 31:31)​

 

[Ronald Nolette]

PAUL taught the NEW COVENANT in 2 CORINTHIANS 3:7-11

Please show me where the new covenant is mentioned once here:

Jeremiah 31:31-34
King James Version

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:

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.

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.