The new covenant with Christ Jesus

[BradC]

So, a minster of a covenant of the Spirit of what? THE LAW!

Do you have trouble understanding (2 Cor 3:6)?

 

[Elin]

I speak when necessary,

I understand that is your opinion of yourself.

and your post are redundant.

Perhaps that to which they are responding is redundant.

Take the advice.

Do you?

 

[Elin]

Re: The new covenant of Christ Jesus

I realize that such a statement has been made many times, but what is the proof of it?

In those verses quoted from Jer 33, where is there any "now"?

The "now" is in:

Lk 22:20 - "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you."

2Co 3:6 - "He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant--not of the letter (law)
but of the Spirit; for the letter (law) kills, but the Spirit gives life."

Such unbelief. . .

 

[Elin]

Elin, I apologize for this post, I feel convicted and feel I need to address it. I should not be condescending towards you and though at times my blunt replies often seem that way, I don't intend to be condescending towards anyone, so I apologize.

Apology accepted. . .

 

[Elin]

Re: The new covenant of Christ Jesus

Post 132 says

A covenant can be broken because there are two parties involved.
One or the other can break the covenant.

With that said, making void, or disannulling
the covenant cannot be done by anybody else except the one who initiated it, and
wrote the terms thereof.

Those are the terms.

You evidently believe that man has power over God's endorsements written in covenant when they are disobedient, and demand not to live accordingly.
Just wondering if you believe that we can void out the covenant through Christ also.

Previously addressed. . .pay attention. I'll repeat.

Go learn the difference between a unilateral covenant and a bilateral covenant,

and learn which covenant is which, and

then get back to me.

We'll take it from there.

 

[Elin]

Re: The new covenant of Christ Jesus

Stop it with the shoe horning already.

In Heb 8:7-13, the writer is talking without interruption about the "new covenant,"
and is quoting what is called the "new covenant" in Jer 31:31-34.

You could use a basic hermeneutics class.

You are very uninformed, and are teaching misinformation on the old and new covenants.

I will mention to all again
what Hebrews 8:1-6 says that leads to Hebrews 8:7-13, and into the following 9th chapter.

More shoe horning. . .saying it over and over does not make it true.

Nothing in Heb 8:1-6 changes one iota what is stated in Heb 8:7-13, quoted from Jer 31:3-34, on the new covenant only.

Your hermeneutic is less than inadequate.

 

[Elin]

I'll stick with the United States Constitution as the Covenant, Christ as my Creator

You better appreciate the Constitution while you can. . .

 

[Elin]

Re: The new covenant of Christ Jesus

Or one may read where he said that the law is holy, righteous and good and that it's not the law but the sin in him that brought death perhaps he could come to understand
what the ministry that brought death means.

2Co 3:6-11 couldn't be any clearer:

"He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant--not of the letter (Law)
but of the Spirit; for the letter (Law) kills, but the Spirit gives life.

Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone,
came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because
of its glory, fading though it was, will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious?

If the ministry that condemns men (eternal death) is glorious,
how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness?
For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory.
And if what was fading away came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts!"

Your problem is simple--unbelief.

Just curious if you think Paul used another source besides the words contained in the old covenant to prove the new covenant was valid.

Does it matter?

Paul's teaching is authoritative, keeping in mind that he received it all from Jesus Christ personally.

 

[LEPIDUS]

Apology accepted. . .

I find it funny how you only repost the text that suits you.

Accept it or not, my conviction did not come from you and I had to adres it.

It is evident that you dismissed the advice. God bless you.

 

[Elin]

Re: The new covenant of Christ Jesus

Paul understands it differently than you do.

"He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant--not of the letter (Law)
but of the Spirit; for the letter (Law) kills, but the Spiritgives life." (2Co 3:6)

So, a minster of a covenant of the Spirit of what? THE LAW!

Not quite.

Who gives life? . .Not the law.

The Holy Spirit is not the "Spirit of the law."
There is no phrase "spirit of the law" in the NT.

In the NT, there is only "Spirit," which is the Holy Spirit,
and there is only "letter," which is the law itself.

And it's the grace of the Holy Spirit that gives life.

< Folks are the recipients of a lotta' bad teaching out here. >

 

[Elin]

Re: The new covenant of Christ Jesus

I find it funny how you only repost the text that suits you.

Accept it or not, my conviction did not come from you and I had to adres it.

It is evident that you dismissed the advice. God bless you.

Do you follow it?

 

[just-me]

Re: The new covenant of Christ Jesus

Does it matter?

Paul's teaching is authoritative, keeping in mind that he received it all from Jesus Christ personally.

Personally? Scripture to confirm that please? The encounter with Jesus was on the road to Damascus. Did Jesus give all the information to Paul then? I think not.
I agree that Jesus taught Paul, for Jesus is the creator of all things, and was glorified as such before the world was. So Jesus was the initiator of the old covenant also. That doesn't make the words of Jesus void and ready to vanish does it? What about that. Isn't that cool? Or does that make it uncool? Does it matter? Wow!!!

 

[chubbena]

Re: The new covenant of Christ Jesus

2Co 3:6-11 couldn't be any clearer:

"He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant--not of the letter (Law)
but of the Spirit; for the letter (Law) kills, but the Spirit gives life.

Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone,
came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because
of its glory, fading though it was, will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious?

If the ministry that condemns men (eternal death) men is glorious,
how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness?
For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory.
And if what was fading away came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts!"

Your problem is simple--unbelief.

The question is who inserted "(law)" there to make it look like the law is letter to confuse which contradicts much to Paul's teaching that the law is spiritual, righteous and holy?

 

[just-me]

I write to Elin
Just curious if you think Paul used another source besides the words contained in the old covenant to prove the new covenant was valid.

And because you refuse to answer, you do a Hillary on me saying "does it matter?" Yes it does. Use scripture to prove otherwise. Acts 17 is a good place to start, and in case you didn't know, the writings of the old testament was all people had to read during Paul's time in history.

So when Paul is arrested for preaching against false doctrine what does he say?

But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

 

[chubbena]

Re: The new covenant of Christ Jesus

we can also read Rom 5:20 which tells us the Law came in that the offense might abound...
and where the sin did abound, the grace did overabound. (YLT)

Is it the law's fault that the offense and sin are abound? Did He make a mistake giving the law? Is getting rid of the law His way to compensate for offense and sin? Does Romans 5:20 nullify what he said earlier in the same letter?

 

[chubbena]

i've observed a tendency to say that those who adhere to NT teaching that the New Covenant
has made the Old obsolete
are rejecting the Old Testament.

can we just not confuse the two?
the Mosaic Covenant and the Old Testament writings (the Law and the Prophets, if you will)
are not the same things.

God's Word is all beautiful to His people.

So which part of the "OT" is reserved by those who adhere to NT teaching that the New Covenant has made the Old obsolete? In other words, which part of the "OT" is obsolete? Is the ten commandments obsolete? Is the law abolished?

 

[Elin]

Re: The new covenant of Christ Jesus

2Co 3:6-11 couldn't be any clearer:

"He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant--not of the letter (Law)
but of the Spirit; for the letter (Law) kills, but the Spirit gives life.

Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone,
came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because
of its glory, fading though it was, will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious?

If the ministry that condemns men (eternal death) is glorious,
how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness?
For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory.
And if what was fading away came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts!"

Your problem is simple--unbelief.

The question is who inserted "(law)" there to make it look like the law is letter to confuse which contradicts much to Paul's teaching that the law is spiritual, righteous and holy?

I am the one who inserted "law" based on the context.
I also inserted "eternal death" based on the context.

You don't know that "letter" means the law?

What do you think "engraved in letters on stone" is in the above?

Sure helps explain why you misunderstand so much of the NT.

 

[Elin]

Re: The new covenant of Christ Jesus

Just curious if you think Paul used another source besides the words contained in the old covenant to prove the new covenant was valid.

It matters not.

Paul's teaching is authoritative, keeping in mind that he received it all from Jesus Christ personally.

Personally? Scripture to confirm that please? The encounter with Jesus was on the road to Damascus. Did Jesus give all the information to Paul then? I think not.

You don't know that Jesus personally gave all Paul's revelation to him?

You're kidding, right?

 

[chubbena]

Re: The new covenant of Christ Jesus

I am the one who inserted "law" based on the context.
I also inserted "eternal death" based on the context.

You don't know that "letter" means the law?

What do you think "engraved in letters on stone" is in the above?

Sure helps explain why you misunderstand so much of the NT.

Is it God's fault to have His Words engraved in letters on stone?
Is it not man's fault to miss the heart of His Words by only seeing letters so that God has to write them again in their hearts?

If one thinks speaking in condescending tone helps please continue.

 

[just-me]

Re: The new covenant of Christ Jesus

Just curious if you think Paul used another source besides the words contained in the old covenant to prove the new covenant was valid.

Does it matter?
Paul's teaching is authoritative, keeping in mind that he received it all from Jesus Christ personally.

Personally? Scripture to confirm that please? The encounter with Jesus was on the road to Damascus. Did Jesus give all the information to Paul then? I think not.
I agree that Jesus taught Paul, for Jesus is the creator of all things, and was glorified as such before the world was. So Jesus was the initiator of the old covenant also. That doesn't make the words of Jesus void and ready to vanish does it? What about that. Isn't that cool? Or does that make it uncool? Does it matter? Wow!!!

I write to Elin
Just curious if you think Paul used another source besides the words contained in the old covenant to prove the new covenant was valid.

And because you refuse to answer, you do a Hillary on me saying "does it matter?" Yes it does. Use scripture to prove otherwise. Acts 17 is a good place to start, and in case you didn't know, the writings of the old testament was all people had to read during Paul's time in history.

So when Paul is arrested for preaching against false doctrine what does he say?

But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

You don't know that Jesus personally gave all Paul's revelation to him?
You're kidding, right?

Here's your first quote, why did you change the meaning? Is the revelation that Paul had the same as being told everything that is to teach to the Gentiles? You are a confusing individual.

Does it matter?
Paul's teaching is authoritative, keeping in mind that he received it all from Jesus Christ personally.

So I'm asking for scripture that says that all of Paul's teachings were received personally from Christ. I agreed with that, but it had to be from the Old Testament, as I previously said.