Nothing new about the "new" covenant?
- Thread starter LEPIDUS
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
It's good to compare the promise of God through the prophet Haggai to Zerubbabel.
Haggai 2:1-9
1 In the seventh month, in the one and twentieth day of the month, came the word of the LORD by the prophet Haggai, saying ,
2 Speak now to Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and to Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest, and to the residue of the people, saying ,
3 Who is left among you that saw this house in her first glory? and how do ye see it now? is it not in your eyes in comparison of it as nothing?
4 Yet now be strong , O Zerubbabel, saith the LORD; and be strong , O Joshua, son of Josedech, the high priest; and be strong , all ye people of the land, saith the LORD, and work : for I am with you, saith the LORD of hosts:
5 According to the word that I covenanted with you when ye came out of Egypt, so my spirit remaineth among you: fear ye not.
6 For thus saith the LORD of hosts; Yet once, it is a little while, and I will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land;
7 And I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations shall come : and I will fill this house with glory, saith the LORD of hosts.
8 The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, saith the LORD of hosts.
9 The glory of this latter house shall be greater than of the former, saith the LORD of hosts: and in this place will I give peace, saith the LORD of hosts.
John 2:19-20
19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up .
20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building , and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
Paul preaches the Old Testament covenant in 2 Corinthians 6:16. He writes,
"And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said , I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people."
Even before the Passover God promised. If this promise/covenant has vanished, what would the salvation of Jesus Christ be founded upon? Leaving Egypt is Spiritually the same as being "born again."
Exodus 6:7 And I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God: and ye shall know that I am the LORD your God, which bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians.
Leviticus 26:12 And I will walk among you, and will be your God, and ye shall be my people.
Haggai 2:1-9
1 In the seventh month, in the one and twentieth day of the month, came the word of the LORD by the prophet Haggai, saying ,
2 Speak now to Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and to Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest, and to the residue of the people, saying ,
3 Who is left among you that saw this house in her first glory? and how do ye see it now? is it not in your eyes in comparison of it as nothing?
4 Yet now be strong , O Zerubbabel, saith the LORD; and be strong , O Joshua, son of Josedech, the high priest; and be strong , all ye people of the land, saith the LORD, and work : for I am with you, saith the LORD of hosts:
5 According to the word that I covenanted with you when ye came out of Egypt, so my spirit remaineth among you: fear ye not.
6 For thus saith the LORD of hosts; Yet once, it is a little while, and I will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land;
7 And I will shake all nations, and the desire of all nations shall come : and I will fill this house with glory, saith the LORD of hosts.
8 The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, saith the LORD of hosts.
9 The glory of this latter house shall be greater than of the former, saith the LORD of hosts: and in this place will I give peace, saith the LORD of hosts.
John 2:19-20
19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up .
20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building , and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
Paul preaches the Old Testament covenant in 2 Corinthians 6:16. He writes,
"And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said , I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people."
Even before the Passover God promised. If this promise/covenant has vanished, what would the salvation of Jesus Christ be founded upon? Leaving Egypt is Spiritually the same as being "born again."
Exodus 6:7 And I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God: and ye shall know that I am the LORD your God, which bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians.
Leviticus 26:12 And I will walk among you, and will be your God, and ye shall be my people.
Last edited:
Re: Nothing new about the "new" covenant ?
Because he is.
He can rule his kingdom, of whatever nature, from any and everywhere in the universe, and beyond.
You make God's arm too short.
And what happened to:
The answer is contained in what was previously posted.
You do not pay attention.
Previously addressed.
Evidently you have not read Jer 11:1-5, 10.
If you paid attention, you wouldn't need to revisit everything.
You don't even pay attention to the OT.
You make yourself a waste of time.
Non-responsive. . .you did not answer my question.
And if you paid attention, you would know that I asked.
Because he is.
He can rule his kingdom, of whatever nature, from any and everywhere in the universe, and beyond.
You make God's arm too short.
And what happened to:
The answer is contained in what was previously posted.
You do not pay attention.
Previously addressed.
Evidently you have not read Jer 11:1-5, 10.
If you paid attention, you wouldn't need to revisit everything.
You don't even pay attention to the OT.
You make yourself a waste of time.
Non-responsive. . .you did not answer my question.
And if you paid attention, you would know that I asked.
Re: Nothing new about the "new" covenant ?
elin
[You make God's arm too short.]
you twist verses
[And what happened to]:good bye for now
hello just got up from sleeping, its later did you miss me,
are would you rather i go back to bed till sometime later
[Previously addressed.]
how did you previously address this when i posted new verses post #203 or 194,
and you did not talk about them like
Davids kin reign on throne to [all generations],
If he commit iniquity, I will chasten (him) with (the rod of men), and with the stripes of the children of men:
The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet,
until Shiloh come; and unto him shall [the gathering of the people be].
again i will ask what is Shiloh and is it here ?
so so sorry i missed youre question where i lived, i must have not read every word of youres,
can you go back and find post for me, since you can't see me waving our flag on left,
not that i am proud of it anymore, or argue when a women has a disagreement in the church.
elin
[You make God's arm too short.]
you twist verses
[And what happened to]:good bye for now
hello just got up from sleeping, its later did you miss me,
are would you rather i go back to bed till sometime later
[Previously addressed.]
how did you previously address this when i posted new verses post #203 or 194,
and you did not talk about them like
Davids kin reign on throne to [all generations],
If he commit iniquity, I will chasten (him) with (the rod of men), and with the stripes of the children of men:
The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet,
until Shiloh come; and unto him shall [the gathering of the people be].
again i will ask what is Shiloh and is it here ?
so so sorry i missed youre question where i lived, i must have not read every word of youres,
can you go back and find post for me, since you can't see me waving our flag on left,
not that i am proud of it anymore, or argue when a women has a disagreement in the church.
Re: Nothing new about the "new" covenant ?
Elin
34 My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.
you said-And God didn't break it, the people did
which, according its own terms, nullified it.
i said sorry it is not nullified, people sinned but God says it is not broken.
all you keep doing is saying you proved it but you have not.
you said-Evidently you have not read Jer 11:1-5, 10.
yes Israel and the house of Judah have broken my covenant which I made with their fathers
you said-If you paid attention, you wouldn't need to revisit everything.
i say If you paid attention, you would know God did not anull it.
My covenant will I not break,
you said-You don't even pay attention to the OT.
and-You make yourself a waste of time.
i read the whole bible, and is not a waste of time for me.
but i keep pointing verses but you only look at what you been told to see.
i would conclude again you should reread again the whole bible
Elin
34 My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.
you said-And God didn't break it, the people did
which, according its own terms, nullified it.
i said sorry it is not nullified, people sinned but God says it is not broken.
all you keep doing is saying you proved it but you have not.
you said-Evidently you have not read Jer 11:1-5, 10.
yes Israel and the house of Judah have broken my covenant which I made with their fathers
you said-If you paid attention, you wouldn't need to revisit everything.
i say If you paid attention, you would know God did not anull it.
My covenant will I not break,
you said-You don't even pay attention to the OT.
and-You make yourself a waste of time.
i read the whole bible, and is not a waste of time for me.
but i keep pointing verses but you only look at what you been told to see.
i would conclude again you should reread again the whole bible
There are only 2 references to the "first covenant" in the entire Bible (KJV)
It goes back to what I have addressed over and over that refer to the temple made by human hands, and the temple Jesus has erected in His children. The word covenant in these next 3 verses are italicized denoting them as added. They are "NOT" in the original transcript.
They are as follows
Hebrews 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
Hebrews 8:13 In that he saith , A new covenant, he hath made the first old . Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
Hebrews 9:1 Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.
Those that fight against the "old", (previous covenant) saying it has vanished, and is void have no other scripture references to prove their point by using the phases "new covenant" or "first covenant" for they are found nowhere else other than these 6 verses in the entire KJV Bible.
Hebrews 12:24 (the sprinkling of blood is obviously related to the temple)
"And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel."
In Jeremiah 31:31 the original Hebrew is בֵּית יְהוּדָה--בְּרִית חֲדָשָׁה=House of Judah - New Testament.
"Behold, the days come , saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant (New Testament) with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: "
Hebrews 8:8 is referring to Jeremiah 31:31 above.
"For finding fault with them, he saith , Behold , the days come , saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:"
Therefore, Jeremiah 31:31, and Hebrews 8:8 are referring to the new testament of the blood of Jesus Christ.
All other scripture references are referring to the temple old and new. But even if one desires to separate the sacrifice (the blood of the new testament) of our Lord from the temple, that doesn't work either, for that is where the high priest was commissioned to work, and that's where all sacrifices took place for Israel after the temple was built.
Luke 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper , saying , This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
It goes back to what I have addressed over and over that refer to the temple made by human hands, and the temple Jesus has erected in His children. The word covenant in these next 3 verses are italicized denoting them as added. They are "NOT" in the original transcript.
They are as follows
Hebrews 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
Hebrews 8:13 In that he saith , A new covenant, he hath made the first old . Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
Hebrews 9:1 Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.
Those that fight against the "old", (previous covenant) saying it has vanished, and is void have no other scripture references to prove their point by using the phases "new covenant" or "first covenant" for they are found nowhere else other than these 6 verses in the entire KJV Bible.
Hebrews 12:24 (the sprinkling of blood is obviously related to the temple)
"And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel."
In Jeremiah 31:31 the original Hebrew is בֵּית יְהוּדָה--בְּרִית חֲדָשָׁה=House of Judah - New Testament.
"Behold, the days come , saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant (New Testament) with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: "
Hebrews 8:8 is referring to Jeremiah 31:31 above.
"For finding fault with them, he saith , Behold , the days come , saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:"
Therefore, Jeremiah 31:31, and Hebrews 8:8 are referring to the new testament of the blood of Jesus Christ.
All other scripture references are referring to the temple old and new. But even if one desires to separate the sacrifice (the blood of the new testament) of our Lord from the temple, that doesn't work either, for that is where the high priest was commissioned to work, and that's where all sacrifices took place for Israel after the temple was built.
Luke 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper , saying , This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
Re: promise to David
You really don't understand much about the concept of correct exegesis, do you? and FYI, I taught reading in school for many years, and comprehension was an integral portion of learning that skill! I think graduating with a near 4.0 average for my Master of Divinity also shows I likely have a broader understanding of not only reading comprehension, than all you self taught types, who do not understand that the basis of this thread is based on a faulty understanding and use of both hermeneutics and exegetics and a lack of knowledge of Greek and Hebrew.
I am also sorry that my last post had some formatting issues, which is why some important words were lost. More later in the post.
But first let us re-read the definitions of kainos in the nominative case, from a reliable scholarly source.
καινός or kainos in A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature by Bauer and Danke in the nominative case means the following.
1. Pertaining to being in existence for a relatively short time; new, unused eg. Matt 9:17, Mark 2:22, Luke 5:58, Matt 27:60, Mark 2:21, Luke 5:36, Matt. 13:52.
2. Pertaining to being not previously present, unknown, strange, remarkable. eg. Mark 1:27, Acts 17:19, John 13:34, 1 John 2:7, Mark 16:17, Acts 17:21.
3. Pertaining to that which is recent in contrast to something old; in the sense that what is old has become obsolete, and should be replaced by what is new; eg. Matt 26:28, Mark 14:24, Luke 22:20, 1 Cor. 11:25, 2 Cor. 3:6, Hebrews 8:8, 13; 9:15 2 Peter 3:13, Rev. 21:1, etc.
Neos or νέος only appears once in the New Testament, in SBL and Stephanus in Luke 5:37
I don't see the word "succeed" anywhere in the Greek, KJV or ESV in Matt 13:52. This is something you appear to have made up! This is called eisegesis, which means reading into something you have already made your mind up about. I understand you were using Matt 13:52 to establish a rule that applies to other occurrences, but that is simply incorrect hermeneutics.
KJV has the best word-for-word translation of the phrase καινα και παλαια. The first word is "new" the second word "and" (not also, even or namely) and the third word is old. παλαια or palaia you might recognize from our english prefix paleo-, meaning old. Therefore, καινα και παλαια, means "new and old." (This was deleted in my last post)
"Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old." Matt. 13:52 KJV
"ο δε ειπεν αυτοις δια τουτο πας γραμματευς μαθητευθεις εις την βασιλειαν των ουρανων ομοιος εστιν ανθρωπω οικοδεσποτη οστις εκβαλλει εκ του θησαυρου αυτου καινα και παλαια" Matt. 13:52 Stephanus, with SBL saying the 3 final words the same way.
Next, you have absolutely no clue how to do an exegetical word study! You have taken an expanded definition of kainos from one passage, then tried to extend that definition to all of the other places where the word is found! That is completely backwards. The point of a word study, which you, never having studied Greek or Hebrew would know, is you take a word and learn all the definitions of the word, and then figure which definitions apply using tools such as lexicons, commentaries and books with word studies. I had over 30 sources for my last word study on the Hebrew word racham, or compassion, including corresponding words in the LXX and the New Testament in Greek.
You NEVER take a word, and expand on the definition, then apply it to a pet doctrine. That is BAD hermeneutics!
You can never establish a doctrine on only one Scripture, especially on you have twisted the word meaning on.
Your basic premises seems to be that the New Covenant is not NEW, but NEXT.
Jeremiah in the Old Covenant and Paul as well as the writer of Hebrews say the covenant is NEW.
“Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah" Jeremiah 31:31
"who has made us sufficient to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." 2 Cor. 3:6
"In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." Hebrews 8:13
"In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." Hebrews 9:15
The above verses all appear under Bauer's definition #3, and indeed they are found there. But it is the passages themselves that agree with that definition, which is why I agree with Bauer, because the Bible spells it out so clearly.
Finally, CONTEXT is everything! Bad hermeneutics to isolate a word from the passage it was found in. Hence, the word usage might be totally different in a parable than in other genres. Or not!
By the way, such vitriolic words towards me and several other people because we are not persuaded by shoddy research and poor exegetics, is unacceptable and not Christian.
Sorry you do not seem to understand that the Old Covenant is OLD, obsolete, and fulfilled in Jesus.
"In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." Hebrews 9:15
I will not be posting on this thread. My right wrist is badly broken, and it is tedious to hunt and peck for letters with my left, esp. to people that are too blind to see the obvious!
You really don't understand much about the concept of correct exegesis, do you? and FYI, I taught reading in school for many years, and comprehension was an integral portion of learning that skill! I think graduating with a near 4.0 average for my Master of Divinity also shows I likely have a broader understanding of not only reading comprehension, than all you self taught types, who do not understand that the basis of this thread is based on a faulty understanding and use of both hermeneutics and exegetics and a lack of knowledge of Greek and Hebrew.
I am also sorry that my last post had some formatting issues, which is why some important words were lost. More later in the post.
But first let us re-read the definitions of kainos in the nominative case, from a reliable scholarly source.
καινός or kainos in A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature by Bauer and Danke in the nominative case means the following.
1. Pertaining to being in existence for a relatively short time; new, unused eg. Matt 9:17, Mark 2:22, Luke 5:58, Matt 27:60, Mark 2:21, Luke 5:36, Matt. 13:52.
2. Pertaining to being not previously present, unknown, strange, remarkable. eg. Mark 1:27, Acts 17:19, John 13:34, 1 John 2:7, Mark 16:17, Acts 17:21.
3. Pertaining to that which is recent in contrast to something old; in the sense that what is old has become obsolete, and should be replaced by what is new; eg. Matt 26:28, Mark 14:24, Luke 22:20, 1 Cor. 11:25, 2 Cor. 3:6, Hebrews 8:8, 13; 9:15 2 Peter 3:13, Rev. 21:1, etc.
Neos or νέος only appears once in the New Testament, in SBL and Stephanus in Luke 5:37
I don't see the word "succeed" anywhere in the Greek, KJV or ESV in Matt 13:52. This is something you appear to have made up! This is called eisegesis, which means reading into something you have already made your mind up about. I understand you were using Matt 13:52 to establish a rule that applies to other occurrences, but that is simply incorrect hermeneutics.
KJV has the best word-for-word translation of the phrase καινα και παλαια. The first word is "new" the second word "and" (not also, even or namely) and the third word is old. παλαια or palaia you might recognize from our english prefix paleo-, meaning old. Therefore, καινα και παλαια, means "new and old." (This was deleted in my last post)
"Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old." Matt. 13:52 KJV
"ο δε ειπεν αυτοις δια τουτο πας γραμματευς μαθητευθεις εις την βασιλειαν των ουρανων ομοιος εστιν ανθρωπω οικοδεσποτη οστις εκβαλλει εκ του θησαυρου αυτου καινα και παλαια" Matt. 13:52 Stephanus, with SBL saying the 3 final words the same way.
Next, you have absolutely no clue how to do an exegetical word study! You have taken an expanded definition of kainos from one passage, then tried to extend that definition to all of the other places where the word is found! That is completely backwards. The point of a word study, which you, never having studied Greek or Hebrew would know, is you take a word and learn all the definitions of the word, and then figure which definitions apply using tools such as lexicons, commentaries and books with word studies. I had over 30 sources for my last word study on the Hebrew word racham, or compassion, including corresponding words in the LXX and the New Testament in Greek.
You NEVER take a word, and expand on the definition, then apply it to a pet doctrine. That is BAD hermeneutics!
You can never establish a doctrine on only one Scripture, especially on you have twisted the word meaning on.
Your basic premises seems to be that the New Covenant is not NEW, but NEXT.
Jeremiah in the Old Covenant and Paul as well as the writer of Hebrews say the covenant is NEW.
“Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah" Jeremiah 31:31
"who has made us sufficient to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." 2 Cor. 3:6
"In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." Hebrews 8:13
"In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." Hebrews 9:15
The above verses all appear under Bauer's definition #3, and indeed they are found there. But it is the passages themselves that agree with that definition, which is why I agree with Bauer, because the Bible spells it out so clearly.
Finally, CONTEXT is everything! Bad hermeneutics to isolate a word from the passage it was found in. Hence, the word usage might be totally different in a parable than in other genres. Or not!
By the way, such vitriolic words towards me and several other people because we are not persuaded by shoddy research and poor exegetics, is unacceptable and not Christian.
Sorry you do not seem to understand that the Old Covenant is OLD, obsolete, and fulfilled in Jesus.
"In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." Hebrews 9:15
I will not be posting on this thread. My right wrist is badly broken, and it is tedious to hunt and peck for letters with my left, esp. to people that are too blind to see the obvious!
Re: promise to David
Hebrews 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
I don't see anything that denote obsolete in this verse.
I hope old doesn't mean I'm obsolete. If that is true I am obsolete also. LOL I'm sure you are referring to verse 13 that you quoted 3 times.
OLD=1095. gerasko ghay-ras'-ko from 1094; to be senescent:--be (wax) old.
OLD like me=1094. geras ghay'-ras akin to 1088; senility:--old age.
Hebrews 8:13 In that he saith , A new covenant, (added word in the KJV) he hath made the first old . Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
see post 228, that pretty much explains the truth. The temple is being explained old and new.
Hebrews 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
I don't see anything that denote obsolete in this verse.
I hope old doesn't mean I'm obsolete. If that is true I am obsolete also. LOL I'm sure you are referring to verse 13 that you quoted 3 times.
OLD=1095. gerasko ghay-ras'-ko from 1094; to be senescent:--be (wax) old.
OLD like me=1094. geras ghay'-ras akin to 1088; senility:--old age.
Hebrews 8:13 In that he saith , A new covenant, (added word in the KJV) he hath made the first old . Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
see post 228, that pretty much explains the truth. The temple is being explained old and new.
Last edited:
Re: Nothing new about the "new" covenant ?
Both parties don't have to break a bilateral covenant before it is annulled.
Only one party to the covenant has to break it to annual it.
And that party was not God. God never breaks his covenants.
But he makes bilateral covenants that can be broken and annulled,
as in the Sinaitic covenant.
You still haven't answered by question if you are a USA citizen.
Both parties don't have to break a bilateral covenant before it is annulled.
Only one party to the covenant has to break it to annual it.
And that party was not God. God never breaks his covenants.
But he makes bilateral covenants that can be broken and annulled,
as in the Sinaitic covenant.
You still haven't answered by question if you are a USA citizen.
Re: Nothing new about the "new" covenant ?
You're beginning to grow on me. . .
Different verses do not necessarily say anything different that applies to the point.
What does all this have to do with the subject of the new covenant promised in Jer 31:31-34
and inaugurated in the blood of Christ (Lk 22:20)?
You can't search them for yourself?
You still have not answered my question if you are a USA citizen.
You're beginning to grow on me. . .
Different verses do not necessarily say anything different that applies to the point.
What does all this have to do with the subject of the new covenant promised in Jer 31:31-34
and inaugurated in the blood of Christ (Lk 22:20)?
You can't search them for yourself?
You still have not answered my question if you are a USA citizen.
Re: promise to David
"και δια τουτο διαθηκης καινης μεσιτης εστιν οπως θανατου γενομενου εις απολυτρωσιν των επι τη πρωτη διαθηκη παραβασεων την επαγγελιαν λαβωσιν οι κεκλημενοι της αιωνιου κληρονομιας" Hebrews 9:15 Stephanus
διαθηκης καινης = NEW COVENANT!! Kaines or καινης is right there, being used as a feminine adjective modifying the feminine noun διαθηκης orcovenant. Jesus is the mediator of the New Covenant. Yes, the passage was earlier discussing the temple. But the only NEW temple is our bodies. Jesus is NOT the mediator of the old temple, he is the mediator of the New Covenant.
"Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own," 1 Cor. 6:19
I just had to correct that lie about the Greek. How blind you are to the words and meaning of the Bible! Even in English!
"και δια τουτο διαθηκης καινης μεσιτης εστιν οπως θανατου γενομενου εις απολυτρωσιν των επι τη πρωτη διαθηκη παραβασεων την επαγγελιαν λαβωσιν οι κεκλημενοι της αιωνιου κληρονομιας" Hebrews 9:15 Stephanus
διαθηκης καινης = NEW COVENANT!! Kaines or καινης is right there, being used as a feminine adjective modifying the feminine noun διαθηκης orcovenant. Jesus is the mediator of the New Covenant. Yes, the passage was earlier discussing the temple. But the only NEW temple is our bodies. Jesus is NOT the mediator of the old temple, he is the mediator of the New Covenant.
"Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own," 1 Cor. 6:19
I just had to correct that lie about the Greek. How blind you are to the words and meaning of the Bible! Even in English!
Since there was no posts to the following link and yet 41 views, I thought it appropriate to share it on this thread.
http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/98078-new-covenant-christ-jesus.html
For the modern church of today, it is well worth understanding the truth.
Have fun
http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/98078-new-covenant-christ-jesus.html
For the modern church of today, it is well worth understanding the truth.
Have fun