For whom did Jesus Christ die?

[John317]

Just saying that you love Jesus IS NOT ENOUGH; one must SHOW/DEMONSTRATE/DO what Jesus has asked them to do to confirm their identity as a member of His Kingdom.

God knows the heart and consequently he knows when we are honest and sincere. Therefore God doesn't need to wait for people to do good works in order to know when their faith is genuine.

If people's love for Jesus is real, they will show it by their life and actions. There will be a change due to the work of the Holy Spirit in the life. But the Bible teaches that the works themselves are not what results in justifcation. We are brought into right relationship with God by His grace through faith in the merits of Jesus Christ.

A lack of obedience to God-- or the continued practice of sin-- is merely an evidence that the confession of faith in Christ was not genuine. It can also be an evidence that the individual believer may have misunderstandings of the Bible and needs to be educated in the word of God.

[John317]

The wedding garment is the commitment to the Covenant of the Bridegroom, and the demonstration of that Covenant as proof of admittance.

Please show Bible evidence that the wedding garment is the commitment to the covenant.

Actually the wedding garment is the robe of Christ's righteousness which consists of both the imputed and the imparted righteousness of Christ. In other words, the wedding garment is the character of Christ in the believer, who has washed the robe of His character in the blood of Christ.

See Rev. 8: 14; 19: 8; 22: 14. Washing one's robe in the blood of Christ is manifested in the keeping of the commandments of God. See Christ's Object Lessons, the chapter on the parable of the Wedding Feast.

[Musicman1228]

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

The wedding garment is the commitment to the Covenant of the Bridegroom, and the demonstration of that Covenant as proof of admittance.

Please show Bible evidence that the wedding garment is the commitment to the covenant.

Actually the wedding garment is the robe of Christ's righteousness which consists of both the imputed and the imparted righteousness of Christ. In other words, the wedding garment is the character of Christ in the believer, who has washed the robe of His character in the blood of Christ.

See Rev. 8: 14; 19: 8; 22: 14. Washing one's robe in the blood of Christ is manifested in the keeping of the commandments of God. See Christ's Object Lessons, the chapter on the parable of the Wedding Feast.

OK, I'll show you evidence from Scripture/words of Jesus that the wedding garment is keeping the Covenant is you show me where you got the idea that the wedding garment is the robe of Christ's righteousness (imputed/imparted).

I agree with you that the wedding garment is the character of Jesus Christ 'in' the believer, but the pressing question is how does that believer receive that robe. If the robe is a free gift then why did the poor fellow that was caught at the wedding not have one such that he was thrown out into outer darkness. I mean, who in their right mind as a member of the Kingdom of Heaven (he was AT the wedding-the 5 Foolish Bridesmaids were IN the Kingdom of Heaven) would refuse such a gift especially if it were free?

[Guest]

[i mean, who in their right mind would refuse such a gift especially if it were free?

People do it every day.

[Guest]

Quote:

Mat 9:13 ...for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Mat 18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

MM, you forgot to comment on why Jesus said the exact opposite of what you're saying.

Still no comment? Is this what you do when someone shows that you contradict what Jesus said? Just ignore it and hope it goes away?

[Musicman1228]

Quote:

Mat 9:13 ...for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Mat 18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

MM, you forgot to comment on why Jesus said the exact opposite of what you're saying.

Still no comment? Is this what you do when someone shows that you contradict what Jesus said? Just ignore it and hope it goes away?

Again Richard, I am concerned that you are still misinterpreting what I am trying to get across, even using the words of Jesus to prove my point. You are taking a few texts and making a whole theology from them, just a some Christians to with John 3:16.

Of course I have NEVER said that Jesus did not come to save the lost, it is the method by which this happens over which we disagree. You think that the 'saving' happens as the result of a gift of righteousness based on a concept of 'grace' that Jesus NEVER used. Oh yes, grace does operate, it just doesn't operate as you believe based on the writings of Paul. Grace operates INSIDE the process of sanctification NOT in spite of it. Jesus spoke of the necessity of a person abiding in HIS words, becoming sanctified by those words operating in their lives through the power of the Holy Spirit. They enter this process with the expectation that they will finish the process before they die, becoming righteous through the effort of the Holy Spirit actively leading them into ALL truth. If this does not happen because they die before the process is completed GRACE takes them over the second death into life eternal based on the knowledge that God has that they would have completed the process had they lived. This is the purpose of grace.

This is NOT the way that grace works according to Paul, where no effort is necessary or required on the part of the believer to achieve eternal life because it is given to them as a gift of righteousness based only on the fact that they BELIEVE that it has been given to them by faith. THIS IS A LIE based on a deception that Jesus spoke of in Matt. 24:4-5 and Rev. 2 (Ephesus) and other places, but is disbelieved by the faithful because it just could not be true. What if it IS true. What if the theology of Christianity as promoted by Paul and the Roman Catholic church IS wrong? Should not our primary goal as Christians be to become followers of the words and teachings of Jesus Christ, not the words of self-proclaimed apostles or prophets?

This is where I am in my walk with my King Jesus Christ. I have made HIM and His words the ONLY source that I need and use for information on truth and salvation. I have declared myself a 'bondservant' of the Bridegroom. I understand that I cannot pay for my own debt of sin unless I am willing to die eternally, and that my ONLY hope for eternal life comes through what Jesus Christ did for me and for the Kingdom to which I belong-the Kingdom of Heaven. But I also recognize that I have a responsibility to the truth that Jesus came to earth to testify about, and that responsibility is not eliminated because someone who has no authority from God says that I need do nothing but accept Jesus as my personal Savior and I am saved.

Our church needs to get back to the ideals that founded our church in 1844; we must keep the 10 Commandments, not just the 4th; that we need to truly believe and preach from the pulpit that Jesus is coming soon, and give people solid reasons that this is true; that we will reject the easy road that leads to destruction, and lead people to the tough, narrow road that leads to life; and we need to get back to the idea that theology, doctrines and personalities are much less important than the discovery of truth even if it disagrees with that theology, those doctrines or those personalities.

[John317]

See Rev. 8: 14; 19: 8; 22: 14. Washing one's robe in the blood of Christ is manifested in the keeping of the commandments of God. See Christ's Object Lessons, the chapter on the parable of the Wedding Feast.

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

OK, I'll show you evidence from Scripture/words of Jesus that the wedding garment is keeping the Covenant is you show me where you got the idea that the wedding garment is the robe of Christ's righteousness (imputed/imparted).

I agree with you that the wedding garment is the character of Jesus Christ 'in' the believer,...

I already showed you in my previous post. Ellen White says it directly in COL, and the Bible evidence supports it. Study Daniel 12: 10; Rev. 8: 14; 19: 8; 22: 14 and 1 Cor. 6: 11.

It is true that all who wash their robes in the blood of the Lamb will have kept the New Covenant. But committing to the Covenant itself is not the same as having on the robe. Many people who committed to the Covenant will be lost because they didn't continue until the end, and their life shows they didn't mean what they claimed with their mouth. They weren't overcomers but instead allowed Satan and sin to overcome them.

[Musicman1228]

Originally Posted By: John3:17

See Rev. 8: 14; 19: 8; 22: 14. Washing one's robe in the blood of Christ is manifested in the keeping of the commandments of God. See Christ's Object Lessons, the chapter on the parable of the Wedding Feast.

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

OK, I'll show you evidence from Scripture/words of Jesus that the wedding garment is keeping the Covenant is you show me where you got the idea that the wedding garment is the robe of Christ's righteousness (imputed/imparted).

I agree with you that the wedding garment is the character of Jesus Christ 'in' the believer,...

I already showed you in my previous post. Ellen White says it directly in COL, and the Bible evidence supports it. Study Daniel 12: 10; Rev. 8: 14; 19: 8; 22: 14 and 1 Cor. 6: 11.

It is true that all who wash their robes in the blood of the Lamb will have kept the New Covenant. But committing to the Covenant itself is not the same as having on the robe. Many people who committed to the Covenant will be lost because they didn't continue until the end, and their life shows they didn't mean what they claimed with their mouth. They weren't overcomers but instead allowed Satan and sin to overcome them.

John,

Where does Jesus say anything about a 'new' Covenant. I see evidence of a 'renewed' Covenant in Jer. 31, but the only place I see anything about a 'new' Covenant is in the testimony of someone who wasn't at the last supper and who didn't personally hear Jesus use the word 'new' in relationship to anything, much less the word 'covenant'.

Commitment to and keeping the Covenant is what Identifies a person as actually having on a robe of righteousness. That robe is theirs 'by right', and is not given to them as a gift-a least according to Rev. 3:21, Rev. 7:1-4, and Rev. 12:17, among others. If it is a 'gift' then it cannot be a 'right'. A 'gift' can always be withdrawn, a 'right' cannot ever be withdrawn.

John said, "But committing to the Covenant itself is not the same as having on the robe. Many people who committed to the Covenant will be lost because they didn't continue until the end, and their life shows they didn't mean what they claimed with their mouth. They weren't overcomers but instead allowed Satan and sin to overcome them."

I agree with this 100%, John. If someone SAYS that they are committed to the Covenant and are eventually lost it just means that they were not truly committed in the first place, and this lack of commitment would show up in their actions vis a vis the 10 Commandments.

The 'robe of righteousness' is a function of the sealing of the 'called, chosen and faithful'; those that have washed their clothes in the blood of the Lamb.

[Guest]

They enter this process with the expectation that they will finish the process before they die, becoming righteous through the effort of the Holy Spirit actively leading them into ALL truth. If this does not happen because they die before the process is completed GRACE takes them over the second death into life eternal based on the knowledge that God has that they would have completed the process had they lived.

[John317]

John,

Where does Jesus say anything about a 'new' Covenant. I see evidence of a 'renewed' Covenant in Jer. 31, but the only place I see anything about a 'new' Covenant is in the testimony of someone who wasn't at the last supper and who didn't personally hear Jesus use the word 'new' in relationship to anything, much less the word 'covenant'.

We know for sure that Christ did not ratify the Old Covenant because that covenant was already ratified almost 1500 years before. See Exodus 24: 1-8.

Jeremiah 31: 31 promised a "new covenant." Matthew, Mark, and Luke quote Jesus as refering to the New Covenant. The book of Hebrews and the book of 1 Corinthians also speak of the New Covenant which Christ ratified.

The problem is not that there is no Bible evidence for the "new covenant." The problem rather is that you choose to reject the Scriptural evidence.

You weren't there, MM. Luke interviewed eye-witnesses, something that you have never done. His books are an important part of the Bible. If you choose not to accept them, that is your prerogative.

1) Matthew 26:28

for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

(Majority Text reading; that is, almost all Greek manuscripts at this verse read "new covenant.")

2) Mark 14:24

And he said to them, "This is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many."

(Again, almost all Greek manuscripts have "new covenant.")

3) Luke 22:20

And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood."

(All Greek manuscripts read "new covenant.")

4) 1 Cor. 11:25

In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."

(All Greek manuscripts read "new covenant.")

5) Hebrews 8: 7-13

Hebrews 8:7-13

For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.

[8] For he finds fault with them when he says:

"Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord,

when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel

and with the house of Judah,

[9] not like the covenant that I made with their fathers

on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt.

For they did not continue in my covenant,

and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord.

[10] For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel

after those days, declares the Lord:

I will put my laws into their minds,

and write them on their hearts,

and I will be their God,

and they shall be my people.

[11] And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor

and each one his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,'

for they shall all know me,

from the least of them to the greatest.

[12] For I will be merciful toward their iniquities,

and I will remember their sins no more."

[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.

[wayfinder]

John317, I don't know what Bible you are using, but mine records this. Only Luke and Paul call the covenant new, the eyewitnesses (Matthew and Mark for Peter) do not.

Matthew 26:28 NAS

for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.

Mark 14:24 NAS

And He said to them, "This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many

Luke 22:20 NAS

And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood

1 Corinthians 11:25 NAS

In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood ; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."

[Musicman1228]

John and/or Richard,

Do either of you subscribe to the idea of the 'process of sanctification'? This is a foundational element of the SDA church, and we are the only church in the world that still holds and teaches that sanctification is integral to salvation. If you don't believe that sanctification is something to be achieved then how can you call yourselves SDA's? You have often accused me of not being a true SDA, but in this regard you are at least as deficient as you believe I am if you do not hold that sanctification is essential to salvation.

If grace works as you believe (as taught by Paul) then what point is there to either beginning or finishing the process of sanctification? 'Grace' makes sanctification moot.

What say you?

[wayfinder]

Here is what Ellen White says, maybe they will accept that.

We are living amid the perils of the last days, and we should guard every avenue by which Satan can approach us with his temptation. . . . A mere assent to the truth will never save a soul from death. We must be sanctified through the truth; every defect of character must be overcome, or it will overcome us and become a controlling power for evil. Commence without a moment's delay to root out every pernicious weed from the garden of the heart; and through the grace of Christ allow no plants to flourish there but such as will bear fruit unto eternal life. {HP 160.4

[John317]

Wayfinder,

The New American Standard Version is based on the so-called Critical Greek Text, which in turn is based on only a handful of Greek manuscripts. Its editors basically accept the reading given by two manuscripts, the codices Vaticanus and the Sinaiaticus. When those two codices agree, the editors have chosen to ignore the reading of hundreds of other manuscripts.

The vast majority of the Greek manuscripts, including the codices A, C, D, and W read "new covenant" in all of those references.

The evidence is overwhelming that Christ was referring to a "new covenant," since it's certain that he was NOT saying that he was shedding His precious blood to ratify the Old Covenant. As I said before, the Old Covenent was already ratified for about 1,500 years.

God had promised a "new covenant." Jesus fulfilled the promises of God as given in the book of Jeremiah.

[John317]

Here is what Ellen White says, maybe they will accept that.

We are living amid the perils of the last days, and we should guard every avenue by which Satan can approach us with his temptation. . . . A mere assent to the truth will never save a soul from death. We must be sanctified through the truth; every defect of character must be overcome, or it will overcome us and become a controlling power for evil. Commence without a moment's delay to root out every pernicious weed from the garden of the heart; and through the grace of Christ allow no plants to flourish there but such as will bear fruit unto eternal life. {HP 160.4

That's a very good quote, Wayfinder.

But do you believe it? I do.

She is not saying that we must be toally sanctified and overcome all defects of character before God accounts us and sees us as righteous. Nor is she saying that we are able to overcome sin on our own strength.

As long as you are going to quote her on the topic, you might as well quote the other statements she makes on the same subject.

[John317]

...Do either of you subscribe to the idea of the 'process of sanctification'? This is a foundational element of the SDA church, and we are the only church in the world that still holds and teaches that sanctification is integral to salvation. If you don't believe that sanctification is something to be achieved then how can you call yourselves SDA's? You have often accused me of not being a true SDA, but in this regard you are at least as deficient as you believe I am if you do not hold that sanctification is essential to salvation.

If grace works as you believe (as taught by Paul) then what point is there to either beginning or finishing the process of sanctification? 'Grace' makes sanctification moot.

What say you?

I say that what you say above is more evidence that you don't understand biblical-- and particualry Pauline--- theology or Ellen White's theology.

Of course I believe in the process of sanctification, and I would be very much astonished to learn that Richard does not.

How could you possibly read and understand my posts without realizing that I believe in the process of sanctification?

What have I ever written that would cause you to believe I don't believe in sanctification?

The issue here is how believers are sanctified. You apparently don't understand righteousness by faith in either the Bible or in the Spirit of prophecy. If you did, you wouldn't talk about how believers must first make themselves righteous and then the Holy Spirit will enter their lives.

[Musicman1228]

Wayfinder,

The New American Standard Version is based on the so-called Critical Greek Text, which in turn is based on only a handful of Greek manuscripts. Its editors basically accept the reading given by two manuscripts, the codices Vaticanus and the Sinaiaticus. When those two codices agree, the editors have chosen to ignore the reading of hundreds of other manuscripts.

The vast majority of the Greek manuscripts, including the codices A, C, D, and W read "new covenant" in all of those references.

The evidence is overwhelming that Christ was referring to a "new covenant," since it's certain that he was NOT saying that he was shedding His precious blood to ratify the Old Covenant. As I said before, the Old Covenent was already ratified for about 1,500 years.

God had promised a "new covenant." Jesus fulfilled the promises of God as given in the book of Jeremiah.

John,

The ESV gives the same report as does the NASB vis a vis 'new covenant'.

[John317]

John,

The ESV gives the same report as does the NASB vis a vis 'new covenant'.

Musicman, please check out the New King James Version (which is based on the Majority Text), as well as the apparatus in the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece. The information I gave you in my post about the NASB is the same that which pertains to the ESV. The introductions to the NASB and the ESV will tell you that they are based on the Critical Text.

The English Standard Version, among others, is also based on the so-called Critical Greek Text, which in turn is based on only a handful of Greek manuscripts. Its editors basically accept the reading given by two manuscripts, the codices Vaticanus and the Sinaiaticus. When those two codices agree, the editors have chosen to ignore the reading of hundreds of other manuscripts.

The vast majority of the Greek manuscripts, including the codices A, C, D, and W read "new covenant" in all of those references.

The evidence is overwhelming that Christ was referring to a "new covenant," since it's certain that he was NOT saying that he was shedding His precious blood to ratify the Old Covenant. As I said before, the Old Covenent was already ratified for about 1,500 years.

God had promised a "new covenant." Jesus fulfilled the promises of God as given in the book of Jeremiah.

The translators and editors of the NASB and the ESV do not doubt that Jesus said "NEW covenant." They merely think that Matthew and Mark omitted the word "new." I have no problem with the NASB's translation of those verses. Even if we assume that the original of Mark and Matthew lacked the word "new," it doesn't mean Jesus didn't use it. Unless you choose to believe that Jesus was talking about ratifying the Old Covenant, He could only have been referring to a new covenant.

So the question is, do you believe that Christ was saying His blood was being spilled to ratify the Old Covenant which had already been ratified 1500 years before at Mt. Sinai? Is this the covenant, or agreement, that you want to be under?

[Guest]

MM, of course I believe in sanctification. My question to you was: Where in the Bible did you get the details of how it works as you layed it out? No answer! A good indication that your idea of how it works is not in the Bible, but another one of your many speculations. It doesn't seem to bother you at all that 90% of what you believe is mere speculation. It sure would bother me. You act like ignoring the question is just as good as an answer. LOL! You won't be able to ignore Jesus' questions when the time comes.

Also, you didn't comment on whether you are going to stop bearing false witness about Paul or not. I quite thoroughly pointed out that what you are peddling concerning him is a lie.

[Musicman1228]

MM, of course I believe in sanctification. My question to you was: Where in the Bible did you get the details of how it works as you layed it out? No answer! A good indication that your idea of how it works is not in the Bible, but another one of your many speculations. It doesn't seem to bother you at all that 90% of what you believe is mere speculation. It sure would bother me. You act like ignoring the question is just as good as an answer. LOL! You won't be able to ignore Jesus' questions when the time comes.

Also, you didn't comment on whether you are going to stop bearing false witness about Paul or not. I quite thoroughly pointed out that what you are peddling concerning him is a lie.

I am not bearing false witness against Paul, I am pointing out discrepancies in his testimony that does not fit with what Jesus said to His own disciples. And in that vein you have most certainly NOT made your cast that Paul is not a liar, you have confirmed it in everything you have said. And since this is a thread that I started what gives you the right to question my ideas about Paul when you seek to stop me from questioning Paul on threads that you subscribe to. You were the one that suggested to me that I start my own thread so that I would have a forum in which to 'spout' about Paul or anyone that I choose. Now that I have done that you continue to accuse me of maligning him when I am merely acceding to your request.

My understanding of sanctification comes from the Sanctuary service as detailed in the Old Testament, and in the teachings of Jesus Christ and His disciples (particularly John) in the New Testament. My understanding comes from an aggregate and synthesis of these testimonies and not from one single source. If you have a specific issue with anything that I have written about sanctification then please let me know what that is so I can address those issues one at at time, and I will be happy to supply you with my sources, chapter and verse.

[Guest]

So you think having your own thread places you beyond questioning? I'm glad that you do have your own thread finally. Because if you didn't, you would only be highjacking somebody else's.

So by all means spout on, spout on about Paul. But I will still have to point out where you're wrong. Notice that I'm not trying to steer your thread into a different direction.

Gotta run. 4:00am comes very early in the morning.

[John317]

....I am not bearing false witness against Paul, I am pointing out discrepancies in his testimony that does not fit with what Jesus said to His own disciples. And in that vein you have most certainly NOT made your cast that Paul is not a liar, you have confirmed it in everything you have said.

But your posts are strong evidence that you misunderstand Paul's writings, and this has been shown over and over again, yet you continue to make the same baseless claims. And you not only make these claims about the apostle Paul but about the books of Acts and Luke, Hebrews, Mark, James, 1 and 2 Peter, and Jude.

What you say about Acts 2: 3 is a case in point.

Despite the fact that your views of Paul have been shown to be false, you keep making the same arguments, as if nobody has responded to you.

[Musicman1228]

John,

No one, as yet, has shown me proof positive that Jesus meant any Covenant other than the one issued to Israel a Sinai. There is, however, significant proof that Jesus was speaking of the Covenant as being the 10 Commandments throughout His testimony.

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Matt.5:17-19.

In what is the 10 Commandments located? In the Law and the Prophets-the Pentateuch (the first 5 books of the Bible) and the major and minor prophets in the Old Testament. The Law and the Prophets is not speaking of the entire Old Testament, which was not a contiguous document during the time Jesus was on earth.

And he declared to you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, that is, the Ten Commandments, and he wrote them on two tablets of stone.  Deut.4:13.

Deuteronomy is part of the Pentateuch and as such is part of the 'Law' that Jesus spoke of in the Matt. 5 text (above). The identity of the Covenant cannot be more thoroughly establish than this.

The word "new" in Jeremiah 31:31 is clearly defined in the Greek as 'renewed', 'fresh' or 'refreshed'.

2319 chadash khaw-dawsh' from 2318; new:--fresh, new thing. see HEBREW for 02318

2318 chadash khaw-dash' a primitive root; to be new; causatively, to rebuild:--renew, repair.

God was not telling Israel AND Judah (both) that He was 'replacing' the Old Covenant with a brand spanking 'new' Covenant. God was simply telling them that instead of the Covenant being written on Stone Tablets that He would put this same Covenant in a 'new' location; it would no longer be on tablets of stone but it would be within them, IN THE HEART. And as a result of this they would finally become His people so He could become their God. This was the goal of God from the foundation of the Kingdom of Heaven at Sinai.

“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, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Jer.31:31-33.

This was a promise specifically to both Israel AND Judah. But because of a hardening of their hearts Israel was taken captive by the Assyrians and disbursed to the far corners of the earth; and Judah was sent into captivity into Babylon. When Judah returned to the land of Israel at the end of their captivity the northern kingdom of Israel was still gone, and is so today.

God gave Judah 70 weeks of years to accomplish the restoration of righteousness (Dan. 9:24). Had Judah done this everything that was in the Jer.31 prophecy would have happened. But this never happened; Israel was never returned from captivity and the northern kingdom was never restored; the southern kingdom of Judah failed to accomplish the requirements of the Dan.9:24 prophecy, they rejected their King/Messiah, and the Kingdom was removed from them, to be given to another people at the end of time.

Therefore, the promise that a renewed Covenant was never and will never be fulfilled by literal Israel, to whom the prophecy of a renewed Covenant was specifically given. Since Israel is now no longer the literal Kingdom of Heaven any prophecies that were specific to that Kingdom that were not fulfilled WILL NEVER BE FULFILLED.

The Covenant of God is and always will be the 10 Commandments, and NOTHING in Heaven or on earth or under the earth can possibly change that as a fact. Whoever says that this is not true is a 'lawless' person, and cannot ever become a member of the Kingdom of Heaven.

[Musicman1228]

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

....I am not bearing false witness against Paul, I am pointing out discrepancies in his testimony that does not fit with what Jesus said to His own disciples. And in that vein you have most certainly NOT made your cast that Paul is not a liar, you have confirmed it in everything you have said.

But your posts are strong evidence that you misunderstand Paul's writings, and this has been shown over and over again, yet you continue to make the same baseless claims. And you not only make these claims about the apostle Paul but about the books of Acts and Luke, Hebrews, Mark, James, 1 and 2 Peter, and Jude.

What you say about Acts 2: 3 is a case in point.

Despite the fact that your views of Paul have been shown to be false, you keep making the same arguments, as if nobody has responded to you.

John,

In no way do I misunderstand the words of Paul; I understand them all too well. That understanding now makes it impossible for me to be fooled by them. You have been caught in their trap, their web of lies, and therefore you accept the words of Paul as the very words of God and, indeed, as 'holy' scripture. It is my view, and always will be, that this is blaspheme, and that is a trap I refuse to be involved in. That does not mean that I don't love and respect you as someone that is seeking after truth.

[Ron Amnsn]

According to John, Jesus died for the Jewish nation and the scattered Israelites. That would also include any non-Israelites who have joined in the covenants together with Israel through faith in and faithfulness to the Jewish Messiah.

John 11:49-52

But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all, nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish."

Now he did not say this on his own initiative, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but in order that He might also gather together into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.