Typo Correction in Thread Title: Convenant s/b Covenant
The Blood of the New Covenant Was Spilled in the 30s or in and around AD 70 w/ the Fall of the Temple?
Former Covenant Partially Exemplified by
Moses and David/Solomon : Tabernacle and Temple
New Covenant Partially Exemplified by
No sign of a functioning Tabernacle/Temple
We can see plausibility of blood spilled for a new covenant with the Jewish Revolt more so than in the 30s when there was NO intent by Tiberius to put an end to the Moses-David-Solomon Temple Judaism tradition by destroying the Temple.
= = =
Question: Why must placing Jesus in the 30s rather than in and around AD 70 be considered non-historical when Jeremiah also saw a New Covenant?
= = =
Jeremiah Chapter 31
“Behold, days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, ** you do not have permission to see this link **“But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the LORD, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.…
= = =
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, “This is the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words.”
Luke 22: 20
** you do not have permission to see this link **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.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
“This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” he said to them.
Jeremiah Chapter 31
“Behold, days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt–my covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the LORD.
“But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the LORD, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
= = =
Clearly, this is not a god of an empire speaking, not a global god speaking: it is not a god for all peoples speaking.
Second, Jesus downsizes from a Kingdom of God/Heaven/Righteousness to a covenant.
Jesus did not speak of a Kingdom of God/Heaven/Righteousness with a new covenant?
The blood of the new covenant seems to be a post-Wicked Tenant Parable thing.
There’s a difference between telling People God is a loving father vs telling people God is a loving God who goes through with the sacrifice of Abraham. That does not work well together.
Third, if the new covenant is about forgiveness, Jesus should have mentioned suspending Yom Kippur. So, he didn’t die for the forgiveness of sins. Instead of staging a Passover event, he needed to stage a Yom Kippur event.
= = =
Steefen said
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, “This is the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words.”
Luke 22: 20
** you do not have permission to see this link **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.** you do not have permission to see this link **
This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
“This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” he said to them.
The gospels are light on “The New Covenant.”
Back with the idea that the New Covenant is not timely in the 30s but in and around the 70s with the Temple destroyed: no, I will not continue to deliver you from the land of Egypt with your geopolitical problems. I will not and cannot deliver you from the Romans. The Mosaic Covenant fails in this instance. So, a new covenant is needed. It is not with me because as with the Parable of the Wicked Tenants, I have left you.
That new covenant is made between the victors of the Jewish Revolt and yourselves.
That new covenant is made between the memory of my crucified son and yourselves.
That new covenant really does not have anything to do with me. I do not have a covenant with you: you wicked tenants killed my servants and my son, as the parable says.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert