IBIJ
In regard to you're insisting that some one explain the new and the old covenant. I decided to post this article from Wikipedia.
 
In my circle of Christians everyone takes for granted that the Old Testament is the old covenant and prophesying the new. The New Testament Bible is Christ's record of his New Covenant teaching.
 
Awhile back I remarked your Sabbath Day hang-up sounded like you were preaching Christian Doctrine with a Jewish tradition. If you are sincere I hope the following article will answer some of your so called questions. In reality I think you are just trying to test the rest of us dummies.
 
NEW COVENANT
 
The New Covenant has never been a significant feature of Jewish eschatology, other than the belief that eventually all Jews will know and follow the Torah without the need to study (Jer 31:32-33). For example, the article Jewish Encyclopedia: New Testament states: "The idea of the new covenant is based chiefly upon Jer. xxxi. 31-34 (comp. Heb 8:6-13 x. 16). That the prophet's words do not imply an abrogation of the Law is evidenced by his emphatic declaration of the immutability of the covenant with Israel (Jer 31:35-36; comp. 33:25); he obviously looked for a renewal of the Law through a regeneration of the hearts of the people."


Christians believe that Jesus is the mediator of the New Covenant (see Hebrews 8:6). His famous sermon from a hill representing Mount Zion is considered by many Christian scholars to be the antitype [7] of the proclamation of the Old Covenant by Moses from Mount Sinai.
Christians claim that they are God's New Covenant people, on the basis of prophecies such as Jeremiah 31:31-34 and Isaiah 49:8. At the Last Supper, Jesus alludes to these prophecies, saying that the cup of the Passover meal is "the cup of the New Covenant in [his] blood" [8] This is an eschatological claim, since he is implicitly asserting that the Old Testament rituals of atonement are fulfilled in him [9].
The Epistle to the Hebrews, of the books of the New Testament, is the most explicit about how the Death and Resurrection of Jesus inaugurates the New Covenant. Throughout the book, the covenants prior to Christ's coming, and their associated rituals and sacrifices, are contrasted with the state of affairs promised in passages such as Jer. 31:31-34 [10]. Christ's death and resurrection is portrayed as a priestly work which puts an end to sacrifice [11], thus bringing permanent peace whereas previous covenants could not eliminate bloodguilt [12]. Most Christians believe the era of permanent peace (see also Messianic Age) will be initiated with Jesus' Second Coming.
The Apostle Paul, in his letters, also considers Christ's death to mark the beginning of a new covenant era. In this era, he claims, the traditional barriers between Jew and Gentile are broken down. Both are approved by God on the basis of faith [13]. However, he also warns Gentile believers in Jesus (whom he views as the Jewish Messiah) not to boast in their newfound acceptance by God, for they have been "grafted in" to the covenantal tree whose root is in the promises to national Israel [14].
Sometimes the New Covenant is referred to as the New Testament, on the basis of passages such as Heb. 9:16, in its traditional translation. This usage reflects the Vulgate, in which the word "covenant" was translated testamentum. Biblical scholars, such as O. Palmer Robertson, have argued against this translation, however, since the word testamentum, in Latin, expresses the concept of a "last will," not an agreement between two parties sealed with a self-maledictory oath [15] See also Jewish Encyclopedia: Covenant: The Old and the New Covenant.
 

Hi GP13
 
Thank you. Finally someone has attempted to answer my simple question. However, I find the information from Wikipedia often confusing at best. I wish you would truly believe that I am not trying to test, trick, or tee off anyone here; but rather would like a simple answer to a simple question.
 
Unfortunately, I would not define Wikipedia's answer to my question as being that. So, if you were to put what Wikipedia has said into your own words how would you explain the New Covenant to me? I have another post from a website I found that attempts to define what the "New Covenant" is. Am I on track with the post that says "New Covenant - is this it?" If not, how would you adjust what they are saying to help me understand what the New Covenant is as well as what the "Old Covenant" was.
 
Thanks for finally giving me the benefit of the doubt on this.
 
Cheers
IBIJ

..In boxing terms, 'grandpa13', 'IBIJ' is "rope-a-doping" you; ie.,
you caught him offguard by actually supplying a 'copy & paste'
article For him, Re. the "New Covenant" {while he pretended that
he didn't know how to look it up himself !?}.
 
..So now, with your supplied "Wikipedia" {'c.& p.'} as "exhibit A,"
he Now says that your chosen "New Covenant" 'regurgitated' ex-
planation, isn't good enough.. so you should try again, and pref-
erably, "in your own words"{!?}.
 
..Perhaps, 'grandpa', you should 'tell' 'IBIJ' {for the 4th{?}
time.. that you're not going to "play-his-game-anymore"; only, This
Time, actually 'carry' your announced intention through!
 
..I have a certain Iranian high-ranking "Ahyatollah" {Muslim cleric}
in mind {Khameini{sp?}} whose intransigent, and sharply divergent
beliefs {from any Non-Muslim} would be the perfect antidote for
'IBIJ's religious intolerence, {of which he's Also in denial of !}
.. and the two of them,{'IBIJ' included} to {ideally} be stranded
together for two-weeks, minimum.. on a very small.. deserted and
remote, ocean island!
 
..Ps. If I had a neighbor of a different faith, {or even, No faith}
I {and I imagine, many other believers} would consider it to be a
a poor.. to Very poor, Christian witness, for myself to point out
how their faith {or the lack, thereof} was inferior to my Own
adopted belief-system, at just about Every opportunity! 0:

Gamma
 
Thanks for your reply
 
Awhile back I told IBIJ that I chose not to play his game anymore. Then I got to thinking, "What if he is really is lacking in knowledge of the Biblical old and new covenant? Maybe I am morally obligated to provide him with information so he can decide for him self." So I posted the Wikipedia article.
 
So I fulfilled my obligation, knowing full well he is playing games and trying to jerk my chain. No one professing to be a Bible Scholar could be lacking understanding of a simple subject like that.
 
Now I am ready to get back to playing chess.

Hi Gamma and GP
 
Well, let's tally up the results so far.
 
1. 2 times called names.
2. 3 times called a liar.
3. 1 time given Wikipedia information that in my opinion lacked clarity
4. 0 times has anyone attempted to explain the "New Covenant" in their own words.
 
When I have been challenged to provide information for my beliefs I have always attempted to use Scripture with my own words. In my humble opinion it would seem appropriate to request the same in return.
 
There are a lot of covenants spoken of in God's Word. Perhaps to everyone's shock and horror I am currently reading all the passages in God's Word that deal with "New Covenant" to see if I can figure out what everyone here appears to be alluding to. Unfornately, at this point I am still unsure of exactly what the "New Covenant" is.
 
Have I heard these words used in conversation before? Certainly. But have I ever asked myself what the words really mean until now, not really. Thus the question arose to me and I put it forth to this MISC BB with largely no help provided minus the copy and paste which GP13 supplied and for which I was greatly appreciative of.
 
Right now I have found several different possibilities for exactly what the "New Covenant" is. Here are the leading canidates.
 
1. The entire New Testament
2. Communion
3. Sacrifice
 
Are any of these correct? Again I will ask, what is the "New Covenant"?
 
Cheers
IBIJ
 
PS: Hey Gamma, and if I were your neighbor?

>Replying to this post by IBelieveInJesus:
 
>"However, I find the information from Wikipedia often confusing at best."
 
Earlier this year the editorial staff of the science-department at Swedish Radio (commercial-free and independent) did a test where they compared The Swedish version of W. (English Wiki. is 10 times bigger) with the most prominent encyclopaedia in the kingdom. The marks were about equal.
 
I think it is sad when people show an arrogant attitude towards Wikipedia.

Was I showing an arrogant attitude toward Wikepedia by asking for a direct answer from specific people that I know rather than relying upon copy/paste dictation?
 
Cheers
IBIJ

Hi gammaburst
 
Interesing that you think sharing differences and studing those differences together is some how downgrading the difference.
 
I have friends that are in many different faiths and we talk about the differents and they do not feel belittle or put down.
 
Then you come to people that claim to believe the same and from the same book and the same God then instead of studing together dirt gets through and people start stamping their feet.
 
there is more unity in differents then those that claim to study the same word of God.
 
IBIJ2

Hi Grandpo 13
 
I am wondering why we would go to Wika instead of a bible dictionary to define what is happening? I have met wika people and they have nothing to do with anything christian and can't stand the name of Jesus being spoken.
 
There are Bible dictionary and the Bible it self.
 
If we had more time I would ask for some ideas on learning to play chess.
 
IT was good meeting you
 
IBIJ2

Hi GP13
 
To clarify a point that IBIJ2 just made. It's long been thought that the writers of Wikipedia are of the Wiki belive system. Whether that is right or wrong, why look to man's writings when God's Word is clear and available for all to read and study?
 
Cheers
IBIJ

That's the first I heard that but I do remember when the Encylos, a not often heard of religious sect, started their tomes of knowledge and then sent their newly recruited members door-to-door to sell them.
 
Tknight (Knight of Britannica)