Timeline for following verses

[keepingthingsreal]

Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

Heb 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

Heb 8:12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

Heb 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.

Paul says the old covenant is decaying and waxing old, and is ready to vanish. What year is this, 66/67 AD? 66/67 AD and they are still practicing the sacrifices.

When did the New Covenant start for the house of Judah and the house of Israel?

"Truth is the most sought after, but the least appreciated."

Not everything I have said in past posts is totally accurate.

First of all, we do not know, of a certainty, that Paul wrote the epistle to the Hebrews. Personally, I believe that he did, but we cannot know that he did with certainty.

As far as the decaying and waxing old part is concerned, here is what Paul plainly said elsewhere.

2Co 3:4
And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward:
2Co 3:5
Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;
2Co 3:6
Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
2Co 3:7
But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:
2Co 3:8
How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?
2Co 3:9
For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.
2Co 3:10
For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.
2Co 3:11
For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.
2Co 3:12
Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:
2Co 3:13
And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:
2Co 3:14
But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.
2Co 3:15
But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.
2Co 3:16
Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.

Paul was a minister of the new testament, or of that which remains, because he understood, and plainly taught, that the old testament was done away with and abolished. Are you willing to admit this? You should be wiling to because to deny it is to deny God's word. You said that they were still practicing the sacrifices around 66-67 A.D. Who is this "they?" Was Paul, who, as a Benjamite (Romans 11:1, Philippians 3:5), was of the house of Judah, still practicing the sacrifices back then? No, he was not. Who was then? Those who Paul just described in what I quoted from his second epistle to the Corinthians, or those who were still blinded to the new testament in Christ, or those who still had a veil upon their hearts. Was Peter still practicing sacrifices? Was James still practicing sacrifices? Did Paul or any other apostle at that time instruct Christians to continue practicing sacrifices? No, they did not. Why not? Because the new covenant or the new testament had come, and there was no longer any need for those sacrifices which all pointed to the ultimate sacrifice:

Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.

How is it possible that you do not know this? Who brainwashed you so severely that you have missed this basic truth upon which the entire new testament is founded?

This is where the new covenant or the new testament started.

Luk 22:19
And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
Luk 22:20
Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

It started when Christ shed his blood on the cross of Calvary while crying out "IT IS FINISHED!" I honestly never thought that I would live to see the day when I would need to argue with somebody who professes to be a Christian as to whether or not the new covenant or new testament has already gone into effect, but here I am, doing just that. Unbelievable.

 

[keepingthingsreal]

Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

Heb 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

Heb 8:12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

Heb 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.

Btw. you should have started your quote a bit earlier. Here are the verses which immediate precede your very selective quote.

Heb 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.
Heb 8:7
For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
Heb 8:8
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:
Heb 8:9
Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

Jesus Christ is the mediator of a better covenant, and this better covenant replaced the first covenant or the covenant which God made with the Israelites when he brought them out of the land of Egypt. How long will you continue to deny this simple basic truth? How long will you attempt to play me as if I am some ignorant fool? I am anything but ignorant. I have presented you with biblical truth after biblical truth, and you continue to reject them. I am starting to believe that your wife's assessment of you is correct. If you are going to stubbornly continue to reject the fact that the new testament has already come, then I am going to place you on ignore. I simply cannot afford to waste time beating a dead horse.

 

[tttallison]

First of all, we do not know, of a certainty, that Paul wrote the epistle to the Hebrews. Personally, I believe that he did, but we cannot know that he did with certainty.

As far as the decaying and waxing old part is concerned, here is what Paul plainly said elsewhere.

2Co 3:4
And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward:
2Co 3:5
Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;
2Co 3:6
Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
2Co 3:7
But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:
2Co 3:8
How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?
2Co 3:9
For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.
2Co 3:10
For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.
2Co 3:11
For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.
2Co 3:12
Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:
2Co 3:13
And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:
2Co 3:14
But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.
2Co 3:15
But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.
2Co 3:16
Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.

Paul was a minister of the new testament, or of that which remains, because he understood, and plainly taught, that the old testament was done away with and abolished. Are you willing to admit this? You should be wiling to because to deny it is to deny God's word. You said that they were still practicing the sacrifices around 66-67 A.D. Who is this "they?" Was Paul, who, as a Benjamite (Romans 11:1, Philippians 3:5), was of the house of Judah, still practicing the sacrifices back then? No, he was not. Who was then? Those who Paul just described in what I quoted from his second epistle to the Corinthians, or those who were still blinded to the new testament in Christ, or those who still had a veil upon their hearts. Was Peter still practicing sacrifices? Was James still practicing sacrifices? Did Paul or any other apostle at that time instruct Christians to continue practicing sacrifices? No, they did not. Why not? Because the new covenant or the new testament had come, and there was no longer any need for those sacrifices which all pointed to the ultimate sacrifice:

Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.

How is it possible that you do not know this? Who brainwashed you so severely that you have missed this basic truth upon which the entire new testament is founded?

This is where the new covenant or the new testament started.

Luk 22:19
And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
Luk 22:20
Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

It started when Christ shed his blood on the cross of Calvary while crying out "IT IS FINISHED!" I honestly never thought that I would live to see the day when I would need to argue with somebody who professes to be a Christian as to whether or not the new covenant or new testament has already gone into effect, but here I am, doing just that. Unbelievable.

You ask who was still practicing sacrifices in 66-67 A.D. It was the house of Israel, the same people to whom the new covenant was to come. Read the verses you provided. 2 Corinthians 3:14-16. The vail is still over their eyes.

Paul said my heart's desire for Israel is that they might be saved. They had not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of Christ. Paul here is making a distinction between Israel and his brothers who are saved. Turn to the next chapter, chapter 11.

Rom 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

Rom 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

Rom 11:27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. This is the covenant I have been talking about, and it has not yet taken place.

Rom 11:28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.

Jesus said, Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

 

[keepingthingsreal]

You ask who was still practicing sacrifices in 66-67 A.D. It was the house of Israel, the same people to whom the new covenant was to come. Read the verses you provided. 2 Corinthians 3:14-16. The vail is still over their eyes.

Paul said my heart's desire for Israel is that they might be saved. They had not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of Christ. Paul here is making a distinction between Israel and his brothers who are saved. Turn to the next chapter, chapter 11.

Rom 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

Rom 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

Rom 11:27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. This is the covenant I have been talking about, and it has not yet taken place.

Rom 11:28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.

Jesus said, Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Seriously? That is your response? Paul was part of the house of Judah, and you conveniently refuse to acknowledge the same.

No offense, but I simply cannot waste any more time with you. I believe that it is disrespectful to not acknowledge somebody when they pose a question directly to me or when they respond to something that I have said. It is mostly for this reason that I have been responding to you for as long as I have been, but I am going to put you on ignore so I don't need to see your questions or responses anymore.

Before I go, I need to tell you, straightforwardly, that you are GREATLY in error. For example, the whole purpose of the epistle to the Hebrews was to show the Hebrews that Jeremiah's prophecy concerning the new covenant had come to pass. Throughout the epistle, the writer contrasts angels (because the law was given by angels) and God's Son (because the Son is greater than angels), Moses as a servant and Jesus as a son (because a son is greater than a servant), while making multiple other contrasts between the Old Testament law and the New Testament in Christ's blood which has replaced it. You? You have totally shut your eyes, ears, and heart to this irrefutable truth, so I will no longer give you even a second of my time. I would strongly advise you to repent before God for consistently rejecting truths out of his word, but that is your own call.

Farewell.

I am putting you on ignore.

 

[tttallison]

Btw. you should have started your quote a bit earlier. Here are the verses which immediate precede your very selective quote.

Heb 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.

Yes Jesus is the mediator of a better covenant. But the Jews have rejected it. Their eyes have been blinded until the time of the Gentiles has been fulfilled. This covenant was directed to the Jews alone. Because the Jews rejected the covenant, the door for the Gentiles has been opened.

There has been a tendency for replacement theology. The New Covenant spoken of in Jeremiah was for the two houses of Israel. The following is the complete covenant as presented by Jeremiah.

Jer 31:31
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:
Jer 31:32
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:
Jer 31:33
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.
Jer 31:34
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.

While a remnant has accepted this covenant the nation of Israel has not.

What advantage has the Jew, much chiefly everyway, for unto them has been committed the oracles of God.

 

[vassal]

No offense, but what you think means nothing to me personally. I saw that you agreed with tttallison's belief that the new covenant has not come yet, and you are in great error, according to God's word, and not according to just my own opinion, if such is indeed the case.

the new covenant is in effect and has started but not for all. it is for those who truly believe in GOD and do his will. I agree with him mostly but not everything exactly. essentially the new covenant has started and will grow to become the kingdom of heaven when christ returns.

and yes, your comment is offensive, why did you even reply to me unless it was to insult? there is only one truth and it is the word of GOD what we think is irrelevant.

Jeremiah 31:31 states clearly the new covenant is for the end times and believers. note that paul quoted from Jeremiah here is the full text ;

"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..."


While the "new covenant" was inaugurated by Jesus, the final fulfillment of Jeremiah 31:31 and the "time to come" will be realized in the final end times. The "new covenant" anticipates not only individual transformation but also the ultimate restoration of Israel and the world. This includes the final return of the Messiah, the resurrection of the dead, and the establishment of God's kingdom.

 

[vassal]

Seriously? That is your response? Paul was part of the house of Judah, and you conveniently refuse to acknowledge the same.

No offense, but I simply cannot waste any more time with you. I believe that it is disrespectful to not acknowledge somebody when they pose a question directly to me or when they respond to something that I have said. It is mostly for this reason that I have been responding to you for as long as I have been, but I am going to put you on ignore so I don't need to see your questions or responses anymore.

Before I go, I need to tell you, straightforwardly, that you are GREATLY in error. For example, the whole purpose of the epistle to the Hebrews was to show the Hebrews that Jeremiah's prophecy concerning the new covenant had come to pass. Throughout the epistle, the writer contrasts angels (because the law was given by angels) and God's Son (because the Son is greater than angels), Moses as a servant and Jesus as a son (because a son is greater than a servant), while making multiple other contrasts between the Old Testament law and the New Testament in Christ's blood which has replaced it. You? You have totally shut your eyes, ears, and heart to this irrefutable truth, so I will no longer give you even a second of my time. I would strongly advise you to repent before God for consistently rejecting truths out of his word, but that is your own call.

Farewell.

I am putting you on ignore.

paul was from the tribe of benjamin.

 

[tttallison]

paul was from the tribe of benjamin.

vassal greetings,

I believe keepingthingsreal was considering the idea that the tribe of Benjamin was a part of the southern kingdom.

I would be interested in discussing our differences. Maybe we can learn from one another.

Terrell

 

[keepingthingsreal]

paul was from the tribe of benjamin.

I am well aware of this, and I said as much here.

Was Paul, who, as a Benjamite (Romans 11:1, Philippians 3:5), was of the house of Judah, still practicing the sacrifices back then?

When the kingdom was divided after the reign of Solomon, the two southern tribes of Judah and Benjamin were referred to as being Judah whereas the 10 northern tribes were referred to as being Israel.

 

[keepingthingsreal]

the new covenant is in effect and has started but not for all. it is for those who truly believe in GOD and do his will. I agree with him mostly but not everything exactly. essentially the new covenant has started and will grow to become the kingdom of heaven when christ returns.

Well, that is not what he believes, and you previously agreed with his beliefs which are contrary to what you just stated.

and yes, your comment is offensive, why did you even reply to me unless it was to insult? there is only one truth and it is the word of GOD what we think is irrelevant.

Oh, please. If you found my comment to be offensive, then you need to grow up. All that I said is IF you agree with him, THEN you are in great error.

Why did I reply to you? I already answered that question in my last post to your buddy. I reply to people who directly address me out of courtesy. To insult? Seriously, grow up. What I said was true, and if you find that to be insulting, then your problem is with the truth, and not with me.

Of course, I agree that God's word, rightly divided, is the basis or foundation for truth.

Jeremiah 31:31 states clearly the new covenant is for the end times and believers. note that paul quoted from Jeremiah here is the full text ;

"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..."


While the "new covenant" was inaugurated by Jesus, the final fulfillment of Jeremiah 31:31 and the "time to come" will be realized in the final end times. The "new covenant" anticipates not only individual transformation but also the ultimate restoration of Israel and the world. This includes the final return of the Messiah, the resurrection of the dead, and the establishment of God's kingdom.

And? Where have I said otherwise. Go rebuke your buddy. He is the one who does not believe that the new covenant was inaugurated by Jesus, and it was your agreement with the post in which he said that which initiated my if/then comment to you which you childishly found to be both offensive and insulting.

Anyhow, I am done with this conversation. I will not put you on ignore yet. If you have something else to say, then I will read it, but if it is going to be along the same lines as your post that I am now responding to, then you probably will find yourself on ignore.

 

[keepingthingsreal]

@vassal

Btw, if you do decide to say something else to me, then be sure to quote me so I get a notification. This thread no longer appears on my screen, and I am fine with that. I am guessing that is because I put the OP on ignore.

 

[tttallison]

Well, that is not what he believes, and you previously agreed with his beliefs which are contrary to what you just stated.

It is exactly what I believe. I Previously stated that I made some statements that were not accurate. I apologize. I do not always express myself correctly.

 

[vassal]

@vassal

Btw, if you do decide to say something else to me, then be sure to quote me so I get a notification. This thread no longer appears on my screen, and I am fine with that. I am guessing that is because I put the OP on ignore.

nor gonna happen take care.