The New Covenant...Or Not?

[Egyptian Phoenix]

When Christians speak of a New Covenant they mean that they believe the covenant of the Jews at Sinai has been replaced with the current covenant of salvation by Jesus' blood. When Jews speak of a covenant they mean something part of the Sinai Covenant, or something that complements that covenant, but never abolishes it. That being said, is the New Covenant of Christians really new? How likely is it that Jesus a first century Jew would come teaching Jews that he brought a covenant to replace the Sinai Covenant and by extension all the covenants that fall under that? (Noah, Abraham, Jacob, David, etc.)

[thedope]

The terms heaven and earth represent diametrically opposed perceptions of the Identical phenomena. Whatever is loosed on earth is also loosed in heaven.

Old covenant was allowed for hardness of heart and calls for arbitration. The new covenant allows for growing into mercy and calls for forgiveness.

The last judgment is the last one we make, guilty or not.

[Egyptian Phoenix]

Originally Posted by thedope

The terms heaven and earth represent diametrically opposed perceptions of the Identical phenomena. Whatever is loosed on earth is also loosed in heaven.

Old covenant was allowed for hardness of heart and calls for arbitration. The new covenant allows for growing into mercy and calls for forgiveness.

The last judgment is the last one we make, guilty or not.

That totally didn't answer my question

[thedope]

They are diametrically opposed is the answer, does that make it new. It think different from before does make it new in practice, in how agreement, covenant, is reached.

[Egyptian Phoenix]

So the New Covenant is to be the only Biblical covenant that totally diverges from the Sinai Covenant? You do realize the Bible contains more then just the Sinai Covenant right?

[thedope]

Originally Posted by Senedjem

So the New Covenant is to be the only Biblical covenant that totally diverges from the Sinai Covenant? You do realize the Bible contains more then just the Sinai Covenant right?

I don't know that much about theology.
What makes heaven so accessible to little children is that they are wholly trusting.
My observations are of the practical differences in attention.
Before, where we sought compliance, we found ourselves seriously deficient in situational awareness and have many problems that seem intractable as a result. Now we seek understanding of our true nature, and the truth sets us free.

[BruceDLimber]

Originally Posted by Senedjem

When Christians speak of a New Covenant they mean that they believe the covenant of the Jews at Sinai has been replaced with the current covenant of salvation by Jesus' blood.

However, in the view of some of us even that isn't the "new" one--or at least, not the newest--because there have been others since then; and IOV the newest one was issued over a century ago at what we see as the Return of the Christ Spirit, and it now guides the Baha'i Faith!

You can see it by visiting:

www.bahai-library.org

and looking under "Baha'i Writings" for the Book of the Covenant (aka Kitab-i-Ahd).

Best! :-)

Bruce

[Poisonshady313]

Originally Posted by thedope

I don't know that much about theology.
What makes heaven so accessible to little children is that they are wholly trusting.
My observations are of the practical differences in attention.
Before, where we sought compliance, we found ourselves seriously deficient in situational awareness and have many problems that seem intractable as a result. Now we seek understanding of our true nature, and the truth sets us free.

You still haven't even begun to address the OP's question.

[fallingblood]

As you stated, there were other Covenants. The Covenant was renewed on various occasions. That being so, I don't think it would be a stretch that it would be renewed again.

Now, I'm not saying that the Christian perspective is correct. However, when Paul suggests a new covenant, I don't think he is talking about one opposed to the old covenant, the Sinai covenant. We must remember that he was also a Jew, or at least believed himself to be a Jew. Being such, I doubt Paul would have radically dissolved ties with the old covenant in order to create a new one. Instead, it is more likely that he was of the thought that the covenant was once again being renewed.

It also has to be remembered that Jesus never stated that they should dissolve the law or the covenant. Paul never says such either. Both, again, were Jews and it should be safe to assume that they subscribed to the Jewish laws and the Jewish covenant. If anything, it was just a renewal.

[Zadok]

It is LDS doctrine that the New Covenant given by Jesus was the same covenant given to Adam when he left Eden and to Noah following the flood. One of the names of this covenant is the covenant of “peace”. It is the covenant of Melchizedek that was the founder and first King of Salem that later became Jerusalem and also the “high priest” that taught the covenant of G-d to Abraham. This correlates to the saying of Jesus that “My peace I give unto you”.

LDS doctrine is that the covenant of Melchizedek is being again established as a restoration in preparation to the 1,000 years of peace that Christ will bring as the final restoration fulfils or completes the restoration of the covenant.

The Sinai covenant was a lesser covenant meant to prepare Israel as a nation of peace but the fulfilling of the covenant was rejected by the Jews. But it is also prophesied that the Jews will return to Jerusalem to receive again the covenant. This doctrine displeases some Muslims that do not understand that the Jews will be the last that will receive the covenant before the L-rd returns.
Zadok