The Gospels and the Mystery

Curious.
Blood sealed covenants. The blood of Jesus sealed the new covenant.

If not for being crucified how would that have been accomplished by Jesus.?
Who took the sins of the world upon himself on the cross and for all that means. (cursed is anyone hanged on a tree)



Yet,Saul,also called Paul, was hunting down and executing Jews who believed the Gospel.


OK,thank you.

Matthew 16:18

Sorry I'm immune to that kind of guilt tripping.

Are there that many flavors now?

I looked at an earlier post and discovered something that might help MM, who said that Paul's description of the Gospel in 1 CR 15:1-4 said that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures, but that Peter's Kingdom Gospel made no mention anywhere for having to believe in these three elements.

Actually, Peter's description is found in Acts 2:22-24, where he speaks of Jesus as working miracles, dying on the cross, and being raised from the dead.

MM also said that Paul never stated the requirement for baptism for remissions of sins not for salvation, as though those are two different things, but Paul himself was baptized per ACTS 9:18, and Peter recognized baptism with the Holy Spirit per ACTS 11:16.

In Corinth Paul preached to Jews and Greeks, baptizing many who believed per ACTS 18:1-8. In ACTS 19:4-10 Paul officiated over rebaptizing believers who had a deficient understanding of the Gospel and then preached about the kingdom of God to both Jews and Greeks in Asia.

And then we have Paul's references to being buried with Christ in baptism in RM 6:4 and CL 2:12. IOW, we have a history of Paul instituting water baptism for remission of sins as representing baptism with the Holy Spirit.

Only one Rightly Divided question remains for me:

I have decided to follow Jesus?

Amen.

Some people out there never seem to feel secure in their lives if they don't have some sort of label to try and slap onto others. Such seems to help them to feel superior somehow, although it appears more like a mental and spiritual illness than anything else.

Welcome, GRACE_ambassador.

MM

Which interpretation of that verse do you stand upon?

What's your meaning in pointing to that one?

MM

Let's look at what scripture says:

Luke 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

1 Corinthians 11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink [it], in remembrance of me.

We today are partakers of an inheritance, the right of which was sealed in His Blood:

Hebrews 9:16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

The covenants made with Israel were for Israel, not all of mankind.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with that question. Nobody suggested that it could be anyone but Christ Jesus.

Yes, and he was also converted. Moses was a murderer, and the Lord used him, just as Paul was a murderer, and the Lord used him.

So, if I may ask, what's your point?

MM

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 16:18&version=HHH

Matthew 16:18
As your name is, you are: Petros - a rock; On this rock I will build you
communal, and all the forces of Saul will not overcome it.

I did look at what the Scripture says. Thanks.

Matthew 16:17-18
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

This is an age old argument that has been raging for over a century.

Jesus initially addresses Peter as (petros) the pebble, or rock (like one that one can throw), and then He moves on to a (petra) which is a very large stone that no man can throw like a pebble, like a cliff edge or large stone. The Church is therefore much larger than any man, and Peter did not die for the Church, and placing a mere man in the place of Christ as it's foundation, that's very roman catholic and pagan. The Greek is much too clear for such a simplistic corruption in language and scope of meaning.

Failing to observe the differences is willful in nature, and I'm hoping you will see that in the clarity of the language rather than the weaknesses of the English wording the translators chose.

MM

I was pointing out that "covenant" is not the word Jesus used in the passing of that cup. Covenants were established ONLY with Israel, not the body of Christ under the Gospel of Grace.

MM

The Greek word means covenant. The word "testament" derives from the Latin translation of Greek "covenant". The 11 disciples were Israel with whom Christ cut the new covenant.

We are in the Covenant because there is no Jew or Gentile He rew or Greek. We are all one in Christ.

I'm not Roman Catholic. I know the church referred to is the whole of believers as the body of Christ. I hope you will not continue to imagine those you reply to are ignorant of Hermeneutics.

That is true, but up to a point. Carrying that too far would destroy the family, for it's also written that there is "no male nor female" in Christ. So, when we are talking about Covenants made with ONLY Israel, that too is a distinction that remains distinct from the reality of salvation, which is what it means to be in Christ. In other words, the Lord makes no distinctions when it comes to His invitation to salvation, for it is written in His word that He desires that ALL mankind come to salvation.

So, forcing the phenomenon of being in Christ for salvation over onto Covenants, that's simply false. In the family, there is male and female, with the male being the head of the wife as Christ is the Head of the Church. The Lord established covenants, therefore, ONLY with Israel, just as the Lord places the mantle of authority over the family ONLY upon the shoulders of the husband. Granted, there are some men out there who are not real men, and therefore allow their wives to rule over them in the family and women in their churches. Doctrinal teaching authority is one of those things where some try to force the "in Christ" non-distinctives, and that is anti-Bible, which is anti-God with them having fashioned a god after their own image of what THEY think their god should be like.

A false god can save nobody...pure and simple.

MM

Not at all. No. I did not mean for you to think that. You see, ignorance of hermeneutics is usually demonstrated openly so that nobody has to assume anything about those who violate the most basic realities conveyed within scripture as a wholistic body of doctrines clearly taught in word and demonstrated through actions. When some come along and claim the Bible says one thing when it says something else, and/or they convey a doctrinal stance that violates the comparative stand the Lord has taken that is contrary, THEN it can be seen that they do not understand hermeneutical rules for interpretation. I'm a Systematic Theologian in the way that I understand scripture rather than to take verses in isolation, as is the practice of some who try and pit the word of God against itself and as a battering ram against the beliefs of others. I try to engage in dialogue others who may disagree on some points with me, and that's why I ask questions in various ways to try and arrive at the basis for the beliefs that some have.

Some out there, however (not saying you are of this stripe), have no greater weapons of intellect in their arsenal than to perpetrate ad hominem attacks against the character and even the spiritual condition of those they deem their opponents. As pathetic as that is, it speaks loud volumes to the weaknesses in their theology.

I hope that clarifies my sentiments and thinking for your understanding.

MM

True.

The Gospel of Jesus the Christ is the new Covenant that embraces all who are called to believe. Which is why the barriers you refer to,Jew,Gentile,Greek,male,female, are dissolved and we are now all one,in Christ.

Jeremiah 31.

Genesis 12:1 Now the Lord said to Abram,
“Go forth from your country,
And from your relatives
And from your father’s house,
To the land which I will show you;
2. And I will make you a great nation,
And I will bless you,
And make your name great;
And so you shall be a blessing;
3.And I will bless those who bless you,
And the one who curses you I will curse.
And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed.”


I don't think we can forget that Abraham was a Gentile who was chosen to be the ancestor of the Jewish people.

Abraham became the progenitor Semite. As an Israeli I am a descendant of his. Being in Christ does not erase that. The Lord is still going to deal with the genetic Israelites in the tribulation, and give to them the New Jerusalem as their dwelling place, as well as the ancient Israelites throughout the centuries past who were loyal unto the Lord in obedience to His Law, and who were of faith.

If you want to call it a covenant, then you're free to do so, but words mean things, and subjective use of those words do not in any way change the reality of scriptural language and meaning.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this.

MM