Writing of Peter , James and John

[dan p]

No, I used to be dispensational, until I studied history and learned that no one thought that way until the 1830s. There is a reason that ALL OF THE EVIDENCE FOR DISPENSATIONAL INTEPRETATION OF PAUL IS AFTER 1830--IT WASN'T INVENTED UNTIL THEN!!!!

Furthermore, it wasn't until the last 200 years that people believed that Peter's letters were not written to the church. Why is there no evidence in the first 1800 years of Christianity that people believed that Peter's letters were not for the church? Because that system of belief--dispensationalism--wasn't invented until AFTER the first 1800 years of Christianity.

And if Paul wrote Hebrews (and that is a BIG "if"--and what is the person that has a (supposed) different gospel and has a (supposed) different apostleship that is to Gentiles only doing writing to Jews in the first place?), he says in ch. 8 that the New Covenant has already been enacted, not that it will be in future.

  Hi NTS , where in Heb 8 , is that verse , you are talking about



 

[NTStudent]

Hebrews 8:6 and following.

[dan p]

Hebrews 8:6 and following.

 Hi NTS , WHAT IS YOUR  ANALYSIS , of Heb 8:6 , and where is your TIMELINE , you should have one to make a case , and it looks to me that you have STUCK OUT  again , what a bummer !!!

[NTStudent]

8:6 says that the new covenant has already been enacted--completed action. No future prediction, here. One has to use an invented timeline--dispensationalism!!!!--to make the enactment of the covenant future.

[dan p]

8:6 says that the new covenant has already been enacted--completed action. No future prediction, here. One has to use an invented timeline--dispensationalism!!!!--to make the enactment of the covenant future.

 Hi NTS , I knew that you could not produce one , and that is smart , But  you struck out again .

 1) Can you show any example that the New Covenant has been Implemented   Bet you can not !!!!   

 2) Can you show an example that God is dealing today with Israel ?


 3) I had to wtite what the New Covenant intailed , and you did not respond to it , and you have NEVER shown to me what you believe about the New Covenant ?


 4) You can DRIVE for show , But you PUT for Dough and you can't put !!!

[NTStudent]

It is not my fault that Hebrews 8 doesn't fit your rules for interpretation--the ones invented 180 years ago. It's right there in the text, and you ignore it because you are married to the system that Darby invented and Bullinger added to when he began the hyper-dispensational movement.

Hebrews 8:6--"But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the (a)mediator of (b)a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises."

The bold part, "has been enacted", speaking about the new covenant of Jer. 31:31f., is a perfect passive--completed action, completed by God. I will let the writer Hebrews determine when the covenant was enacted, not a system of interpretation that has no evidence before 1830.

[dan p]

It is not my fault that Hebrews 8 doesn't fit your rules for interpretation--the ones invented 180 years ago. It's right there in the text, and you ignore it because you are married to the system that Darby invented and Bullinger added to when he began the hyper-dispensational movement.

Hebrews 8:6--"But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the (a)mediator of (b)a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises."

The bold part, "has been enacted", speaking about the new covenant of Jer. 31:31f., is a perfect passive--completed action, completed by God. I will let the writer Hebrews determine when the covenant was enacted, not a system of interpretation that has no evidence before 1830.

 Hi NTS , you have not proven it from that text  , nor give an example of when it began or an example of it in operation to today , and if you COULD , you would produce it in 1 second , BUT you can NOT !!!!    It is  IRREVELANT , is Covenant theology or Acts 2 !!!!!!

 1) Darby and Bullinger are quite apart in theology and will not be able to tell me what is the difference between them , right now , in this point in time and I CAN DO IT RIGHT NOW AT THIS POINT IN TIME , OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD .

[NTStudent]

Hi NTS , you have not proven it from that text  , nor give an example of when it began or an example of it in operation to today , and if you COULD , you would produce it in 1 second , BUT you can NOT !!!!    It is  IRREVELANT , is Covenant theology or Acts 2 !!!!!!

I see you choose to ignore talking about the text. Again, the writer of Hebrews says the covenant has been enacted--completed action. That 8:6 is talking about the Jeremiah 31 new covenant is made sure by the fact that Jeremiah 31 is quoted two verses later, showing that the covenant (in the words of Hebrews itself) HAS BEEN ENACTED. So, if it is not the covenant from Jeremiah 31 that HAS BEEN ENACTED, what "HAS BEEN ENACTED"? It seems to me that you have simply taken an interpretive rule that wasn't around before Bullinger (this rule is even newer than Darby's rules!!!!), and changed the meaning of Hebrews's to fit your (Bullinger's) theology. That is simply eisegesis--making the text say something it did not--and does not--say.

As to Acts 2, anyone who has studied the historical context in which both Paul and Peter lived and wrote (and you yourself have said that you have not) will know that the Joel 2 passage quoted in Acts 2 was understood to refer, from a slightly different perspective, to the same end-time event(s) that Jeremiah 31's new covenant refers to. And Peter himself says that "this"--the sending of the Spirit in Acts 2--is "that"--the end-time events prophesied by Joel, meaning that the sending of the Spirit is, indeed, the beginning of both the end-times, part of which is the enactment (completed action) of the new covenant. Sure, it is POSSIBLE that Bullinger was given a revelation that EVERY CHRISTIAN got this wrong from the very beginning. But it is much more probable that Bullinger is guilty of inventing a doctrine based on taking Darby's inventions to greater extreme. Just like Darby's invention(s), there is no evidence of Bullinger's doctrine before his lifetime.

1) Darby and Bullinger are quite apart in theology and will not be able to tell me what is the difference between them , right now , in this point in time and I CAN DO IT RIGHT NOW AT THIS POINT IN TIME , OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD .

Actually, I do know the differences. One need only look at you and "Daniel" from this site, as you are more in line with Bullinger, and he is more in line with Darby. The reason I put them together is that Darby is the first person we have evidence for that argues that Israel and the Church are two separate entities. Every Christian writer who comments on the Biblical subject of the relationship between the two--from the very first century--held that the Church and Israel were organically related. One would think that if Paul and/or the Twelve believed that the two were different and separate, there would have been at least some evidence before the 1800s. I mean, there is evidence of all kinds of debate on different doctrines, but none on the Church and Israel. Bullinger started with Darby's inventions and modified them, becoming known as the father of "hyperdispensationalism", though I know that there are even more "hyper" dispensationalists (ultrahyperdispensationalists!?!?!) than your brand.

[jonart]

NTS, You are absolutely right on!

[dan p]

  Hi NTS , where in Heb 8 , is that verse , you are talking about



 

  Hi NTS , and I know from some your writings , that you do not know this , that all of the translations , ARE from Covenant theology TRANSLATORS .
 1) That is why all translations are slanted toward Covenant theology . No Dispensational translators were involved in Translation .

[dan p]

I see you choose to ignore talking about the text. Again, the writer of Hebrews says the covenant has been enacted--completed action. That 8:6 is talking about the Jeremiah 31 new covenant is made sure by the fact that Jeremiah 31 is quoted two verses later, showing that the covenant (in the words of Hebrews itself) HAS BEEN ENACTED. So, if it is not the covenant from Jeremiah 31 that HAS BEEN ENACTED, what "HAS BEEN ENACTED"? It seems to me that you have simply taken an interpretive rule that wasn't around before Bullinger (this rule is even newer than Darby's rules!!!!), and changed the meaning of Hebrews's to fit your (Bullinger's) theology. That is simply eisegesis--making the text say something it did not--and does not--say.

As to Acts 2, anyone who has studied the historical context in which both Paul and Peter lived and wrote (and you yourself have said that you have not) will know that the Joel 2 passage quoted in Acts 2 was understood to refer, from a slightly different perspective, to the same end-time event(s) that Jeremiah 31's new covenant refers to. And Peter himself says that "this"--the sending of the Spirit in Acts 2--is "that"--the end-time events prophesied by Joel, meaning that the sending of the Spirit is, indeed, the beginning of both the end-times, part of which is the enactment (completed action) of the new covenant. Sure, it is POSSIBLE that Bullinger was given a revelation that EVERY CHRISTIAN got this wrong from the very beginning. But it is much more probable that Bullinger is guilty of inventing a doctrine based on taking Darby's inventions to greater extreme. Just like Darby's invention(s), there is no evidence of Bullinger's doctrine before his lifetime.
 

Actually, I do know the differences. One need only look at you and "Daniel" from this site, as you are more in line with Bullinger, and he is more in line with Darby. The reason I put them together is that Darby is the first person we have evidence for that argues that Israel and the Church are two separate entities. Every Christian writer who comments on the Biblical subject of the relationship between the two--from the very first century--held that the Church and Israel were organically related. One would think that if Paul and/or the Twelve believed that the two were different and separate, there would have been at least some evidence before the 1800s. I mean, there is evidence of all kinds of debate on different doctrines, but none on the Church and Israel. Bullinger started with Darby's inventions and modified them, becoming known as the father of "hyperdispensationalism", though I know that there are even more "hyper" dispensationalists (ultrahyperdispensationalists!?!?!) than your brand.

 Hi NTS , and here we have a literal tanslation of Heb 8:6.

 1) verse 6, But now He has obtained a more excellant ministry , inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant , which was established on better promises .

 2) Where is your example of when it was installed , and example of it in operation today with in Israel , and you have Not shown it .

 3) I see that you did not show what Hyper-dispensational Bullingerites believe and you should not BLOW SMOKE , because I know what they believe and you don't . Ask me and I will tell you their theology , but you can try PUTTING again , HEH !!!

[NTStudent]

2) Where is your example of when it was installed , and example of it in operation today with in Israel , and you have Not shown it .

What, then does "established" (KJV) or "enacted" (NASB, NRSV) from the Greek perfect passive of nomotheteomai? And why cite Jeremiah 31:31f in a fulfillment formula? Is this another instance of a NT writer quoting the OT out of context (even though under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) as you have argued elsewhere concerning Paul?

The event that established it is Jesus' death and resurrection.

The proof of that it is enacted today are that Jews are, indeed, coming to faith in Messiah Jesus.

3) I see that you did not show what Hyper-dispensational Bullingerites believe and you should not BLOW SMOKE , because I know what they believe and you don't . Ask me and I will tell you their theology , but you can try PUTTING again , HEH !!!

Are you OK? Honestly, some of your posts truly make me worry about you--and I am not being sarcastic.

[dan p]

What, then does "established" (KJV) or "enacted" (NASB, NRSV) from the Greek perfect passive of nomotheteomai? And why cite Jeremiah 31:31f in a fulfillment formula? Is this another instance of a NT writer quoting the OT out of context (even though under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) as you have argued elsewhere concerning Paul?

The event that established it is Jesus' death and resurrection.

The proof of that it is enacted today are that Jews are, indeed, coming to faith in Messiah Jesus.

Are you OK? Honestly, some of your posts truly make me worry about you--and I am not being sarcastic.

  Hi NTS ,the Greek word for " established " also means  " to enact Law , to legislate , to establishe or settle by Law ,"  It is used only twice , the other verse being Heb 7:11 , recieved the law . The New Covenant , then will be the basis for the enactment of the Divine laws for the Jews in the Millennium .

 1) This Covenant contains a better ministry through the new laws , a more excellant minstry , since it is a new and different ministry from that under the Old Covenant .

 2) The Greek word for " more excellant " is used 4 times in the New Testament ans means " different , diverse , outstanding , excellant ."

 3) This Covenant also has  Mediator who is the Messiah of Israel .  Three times it is stated in Hebrews that the Messiah is the Mediator of the New Covenant and Moses was the mediator of the old covenant Gal 3:19 .

 4) Jesus is the perfect Mediator because He is fully God and fully man .

[NTStudent]

The New Covenant , then will be the basis for the enactment of the Divine laws for the Jews in the Millennium

.

This would mean that the writer of Hebrews used a future tense verb--HE DID NOT!!!! You are trying to fit this text into your preconceived--and recently invbented--theological schema. That is why you have to ignore that the word is a perfect tense verb.

And you did not answer my question about why the other chose to quote the Jeremiah 31:31f. passage in a fulfillment formula. Here it is again:

And why cite Jeremiah 31:31f in a fulfillment formula? Is this another instance of a NT writer quoting the OT out of context (even though under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) as you have argued elsewhere concerning Paul?

[dan p]

.

This would mean that the writer of Hebrews used a future tense verb--HE DID NOT!!!! You are trying to fit this text into your preconceived--and recently invbented--theological schema. That is why you have to ignore that the word is a perfect tense verb.

And you did not answer my question about why the other chose to quote the Jeremiah 31:31f. passage in a fulfillment formula. Here it is again:

And why cite Jeremiah 31:31f in a fulfillment formula? Is this another instance of a NT writer quoting the OT out of context (even though under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) as you have argued elsewhere concerning Paul?

 Hi NTS , ANYONE can see that Jer 31:31 , Heb 8:8 and Ezek 36: 26 , is yet future and Paul alway has it right and like Rush Limbaugh says , I have TALENT on loan from God and you can not give and EXAMPLE of the New Covenant that is in Operation in todays world , and that must HURT everytime you can not do it .