1 edit
Originally posted by checkbaiterEr ... aren't you forgetting something?
Alright...here is my point. Since the word Testament means covenant...when did the new covenant begin?
I contend that to be more consistant with the flow of biblical events that it began in Acts Chapter 2.
This would place the gospels in the OT.
No one could obtain the "new birth" that is, receive holy spirit within, until Acts 2.
Luke 24:44-49
...[text shortened]... am dreams.
(NKJ)
This is when the new covenent began....This is when Christ's Church began.
Matthew 26:28
This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
Mark 14:24
"This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many," he said to them.
Luke 22:20
In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.
Seems to me that the New Covenant was made well before Acts 2. 🙂
Cheers,
LH
Originally posted by lucifershammer
Er ... aren't you forgetting something?Matthew 26:28, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
This is my blood of the [b]covenant
Mark 14:24
"This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many," he said to them.
Luke 22:20
In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This ...[text shortened]... u.
Seems to me that the New Covenant was made well before Acts 2. 🙂
Cheers,
LH[/b]Time is very interesting!
Originally posted by checkbaiterI hate to be picky, but outside of Christianity, no one considers "testament" and "covenant" to be synonymous.
Alright...here is my point. Since the word Testament means covenant...when did the new covenant begin?
Covenant means "sealed promise or contract."
Testament means "witness or proof [of something]."
These are notably different ideas.
When you testify, you aren't creating a new covenant. You are, however, creating a testament.
Originally posted by echeceroThis is an interesting topic in its own right:
I hate to be picky, but outside of Christianity, no one considers "testament" and "covenant" to be synonymous.
Covenant means "sealed promise or contract."
Testament means "witness or proof [of something]."
These are notably different ideas.
When you testify, you aren't creating a new covenant. You are, however, creating a testament.
testament
c.1290, "last will disposing of property," from L. testamentum "a will, publication of a will," from testari "make a will, be witness to," from testis "witness," from PIE *tris- "three," on the notion of "third person, disinterested witness." Use in reference to the two divisions of the Bible (c.1300) is from L.L. vetus testamentum and novum testamentum, loan-translations of Gk. palaia diatheke and kaine diatheke. L.L. testamentum in this case was a mistranslation of Gk. diatheke, which meant both "covenant, dispensation" and "will, testament," and was used in the former sense in the account of the Last Supper (see testimony) but subsequently was interpreted as Christ's "last will." *
An interesting essay on the history and usage of diatheke in the covenantal vs. testamental senses can be read here:
http://www.redeemerlutheranchurch.org/diatheke.htm
---
* http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=testament
Originally posted by echeceroI just checked mine and testament=a will;written statement of one's beliefs etc;COVENANT,dispensation;division of the Bible.Other way is different but this is good enough 4 me.
I hate to be picky, but outside of Christianity, no one considers "testament" and "covenant" to be synonymous.
Covenant means "sealed promise or contract."
Testament means "witness or proof [of something]."
These are notably different ideas.
When you testify, you aren't creating a new covenant. You are, however, creating a testament.
Originally posted by checkbaiterThe four gospels are linked to the Old Testament through the predictions of that which allready happened.In the same way the Old Testament is also linked to today and tommorow.This may not be what u were looking for checkbaiter but mabey it ties in in it's own weird way.'proff'.
In your estimation are the four gospels part of the New or Old Testament?
Let me take a guess if I may. I would say the 'new' because they were written after Jesus was crucified, died, buried, risen and ascended. What took place in the Gospels was mostly when Jesus was alive but since they were written after His death which is considered AD they would be considered New Testament.
Originally posted by SkywardNo, I think the four gospels are actually old covenant. The differences are many. Of course this involves "dispensationalism".
Let me take a guess if I may. I would say the 'new' because they were written after Jesus was crucified, died, buried, risen and ascended. What took place in the Gospels was mostly when Jesus was alive but since they were written after His death which is considered AD they would be considered New Testament.
Before the day of Pentecost in Acts chapter 2...
People were still under law.
Believers had holy spirit "upon" them and it was "conditional".
Jesus came for the "lost house of Isreal"
To keep this short, these are only the beginning of the vast differences in the old and new covenants.
After the day of Pentecost in Acts2....
People(believers) were no longer under law.
Rom 10:4
4For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
(NKJ)
Believers had holy spirit "in" them and is now "unconditional"
Col 1:27
27To them God willed to make known what are the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles: which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.
(NKJ)
Rom 11:29
29For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
(NKJ)
God now commands all men to repent. Not just Jews.
Acts 17:30
30"Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent,
(NKJ)
Eph 2:8-16
8For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,
9not of works, lest anyone should boast.
10For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.
11Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh-- who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands--
12that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.
13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
14For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation,
15having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace,
16and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity.
(NKJ)
Originally posted by lucifershammer
Er ... aren't you forgetting something?Matthew 26:28, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
This is my blood of the [b]covenant
Mark 14:24
"This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many," he said to them.
Luke 22:20
In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This ...[text shortened]... u.
Seems to me that the New Covenant was made well before Acts 2. 🙂
Cheers,
LH[/b]This is symbollic of what was to come. He began to prepare his disciples for the good news that was coming.
Originally posted by checkbaiterCould you expand? What were his words at the Last Supper symbolising? What was the "additonal" good news to come that Christ had not already revealed (in words and through his person) to his disciples?
This is symbollic of what was to come. He began to prepare his disciples for the good news that was coming.