It's because we've discussed our particular understandings on this aplenty over the years. It always comes back to the same thing: I see the new Covenant as the means by which we are brought into a relationship with Jehovah, with Jesus as High Priest and Mediator. The terms & conditions of said relationship is embodied in the Law of the Christ and written on our hearts-- not on tablets of stone.

The difference between us is in our eschatology: you are still awaiting and looking for something which I understand we already have been given as believers today within the auspices of the new Covenant. Where you are awaiting the fulfillment of prophecies; I understand that all has been fulfilled, both the Law and the Prophets, and provided scriptural context for what has persuaded me to that understanding, as well.

It's a gulf that we haven't been able to bridge, and so we remain divided on the issue.

[Remember this illustration from previous divisions between us? You see a square, I see a circle.]

--Timothy,
a believer.

 

Right. Wrong. That I'll leave to those inclined to debate over it. I hope, too, that I have never said or insisted that I was right— all I can offer are scriptural evidences. I'm not ever trying to prove I am right, or that I have the right of anything. All I have are the scriptural references, and my present understanding on this, that, or the other.

And I realize that where I'm at with my understanding on the whole Law and Prophets issue is unorthodox. I don't make an issue out of it, and I am adamant in my support of those who lean to the orthodox view, with prophecies imminent in their fulfillment. I encourage them because I can and it is righteous to do so, using that "freeness of speech" to benefit others, build them up, encourage them. Be there for them, when needed. I have no authority to undermine the faith of another. Or reject someone related to me in faith over it. I have a pretty full-time job with my self.

Besides, let's face it... if I am wrong in my understanding (and, logically, be unaware that I'm wrong), do you believe I'm going to be disappointed beyond the Veil? Or if the future plays out prophetic fulfillments as the orthodox believer anticipates? To this I can only respond by saying that I am not saying that Jehovah doesn't bring about Judgment when His Justice demands it. I believe we are living in a period of Judgment right now. How serious it gets remains to be discovered. Man is overly capable of making Jehovah's nostrils flare. And we have an entire collection of examples written in the Bible of how Jehovah deals with Man's nonsense-- so there remains no more excuses.

I confess: All I can do is show my scriptural reasons for why I am of the present understanding. I wish I had the time I did in my youth to lay it all out, but I don't, nor do I make it a divisive issue. Others are likely to, and I respect that. And there are those who see it as a right-or-wrong matter, and question my faith.

I can only offer the same defense the apostle Paul did in his first epistle to the believers at Corinth:

"I care very little, however, if I am judged by you or by any human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself. My conscience is clear, but that does not vindicate me. It is the Lord who judges me. . . He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men’s hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God." —1 Corinthians 4:3-5 Berean Standard Bible

And I appreciated you and @Harry clarifying for me own your position(s) on the Covenant, by the way.

Maybe the two videos I linked below would help better explain my understanding (covenant theology). The second one goes on quite a bit about the restoration of national Israel and his reasons for his view. But he does say at the end that covenant theology rejects that view. I'm still undecided on that segment of Paul's letter. It's too ambiguous to reject one way or the other.

—Timothy,
a believer.

 

Your conviction, that you are right in how you see things, likely stems from your personal experience, and is therefore unassailable as such, but it fails to accord with what is described in the NT as experienced by those who lived the fulfillment of the promises, as expressed in a nutshell by Paul's word: "For no matter how many the promises of God are, they have become Yes by means of him." 2 Co 1:20

To you the new covenant seems to be a mere promise that has yet to be confirmed, where the blessings have not yet come about, like a Law Covenant 2.0 that informs all Neo-Mosaic religions like WT etc, - and that is fine for what it is, since the blessing of all the nations is yet to come by means of those now selected and trained for that very purpose until Jesus returns, which is why it says concerning that time: "And the Spirit and the Bride keep on saying: 'Come!' and let anyone hearing say: 'Come!' and let anyone thirsting come; let anyone that wishes take life's water free."

Regarding God's promises, and their confirmation in us, it is written: 'Therefore, since a promise is left of entering into His rest, let us fear that sometime someone of you may seem to have fallen short of it; for we have had the good news declared to us also, even as they also had; but the word which was heard did not benefit them, because they disobeyed it through their lack of faith.' Heb 4

OT prophets and angels were commended for trying to peer into what was not about them, which makes it seem appropriate for the nations to also aspire to gain insight into such things, in my opinion. 1 Pe 1:10-12


Harry

 

If there are no grey areas for you, I'm happy for you. In my case, I simply defer to my faith that all things will take place according to Jehovah's Will. Faith covers those things I don't or can't know. If I knew the black and white of everything, there'd be no need for faith.

For both if we should live, we live to the Lord; and if we should die, we die to the Lord. Therefore both if we should live and if we should die, we are the Lord's. — Romans 14:8 Berean Standard Bible

Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be restrained; where there is knowledge, it will be dismissed. — 1 Corinthians 13:8 Berean Standard Bible

[QUOTE="Joshuastone7, post: 30933, member: 2"]That said, either one of us is correct in prophecy, or both are incorrect. We can't both be right just by the nature of our diverging views—nothing more, nothing less.[/QUOTE]

There it is again: rightness.

John said to Jesus, “Teacher, we saw someone using your name to cast out demons, but we told him to stop because he wasn’t in our group.” “Don’t stop him!” Jesus said. “No one who performs a miracle in my name will soon be able to speak evil of me. Anyone who is not against us is for us. — Mark 9:38-40 New Living Translation (paraphrased Bible)

The disciple John's thoughts were in the rightness, and Jesus' thoughts were on the righteousness.

But while knowledge makes us feel important, it is love that strengthens the church. Anyone who claims to know all the answers doesn’t really know very much. But the person who loves God is the one whom God recognizes. — 1 Corinthians 8:1-2 New Living Translation (paraphrased Bible) [The apostle Paul circles back to this at 1 Corinthians 13:8, cited above.]

I don't think of it as keeping "my views" to myself. My views are meaningless and invariably change as I grow in wisdom (and experience). What I think on this matter or that is equally irrelevant: I can only point to scripture. How those scriptures are understood by another is between them and Jehovah God, who is the Revealer.

If I say the sky is blue, and someone else says No, it's azure, then who's correct? Because it's always easy to determine who's right: the person who insists the sky is BLUE and/or the person who insists the sky is azure.

To start a quarrel is to release a flood; so abandon the dispute before it breaks out. — Proverbs 17:14 Berean Standard Bible

Submitted for perusal and consideration,
Timothy,
a believer.

 

I don't know this for a fact because I haven't lived forever to know that it's true. It is, however, an assurance or promise that I can have faith in. There is a distinction to be had here.

Let's go with the either-or for one more go, though: We are either right, or we are wrong. Or, we are both wrong.

So, let me ask you: what are you currently wrong about in your understanding of the Bible? If what you argue is correct, that there is only ONE right understanding, then what are you currently wrong about-- because unless you are perfect in your knowledge, perfect in your understanding, you are wrong about something. So, what is it that you are wrong about? And explain to me how your being wrong on that particular matter is not informing or affecting anything else you believe you are right about.

I guess I should also make clear that this is not to be argumentative, nor is it an attempt to sink into relativism. I would simply like to know what you are wrong about in your present understanding-- because we all are imperfect, we all understand imperfectly, and we're all endowed with a "blind spot." To go with that question, I would like to know how that which you are wrong about is not in any way whatsoever affecting anything else you "know" you are "right" about.

Thank you, in advance,
Timothy,
a believer.

 

See, I wouldn't see this as an opinion. Subjective, yeah, probably.

When I started in the computer world, back in the 8-bit days of Atari and Commodore home computers, there were only 16/256 colors that they could display. Before that, as a child, I understood there were the basic colors of the spectrum: Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo, and Violet... Roy. G. Biv, for short.

Today, computers are capable of displaying 16-million colors+ and this in spite of humans only being able to discern somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 million colors.

If someone says the sky is blue, are they wrong, or are they right? Well, for the person who knows that azure is a hue of blue, the person who thinks the sky is blue is not right: it's azure. And for that azure person, it's OBVIOUSLY azure. So, they are right. At least until someone comes along as says, no, that sky is cyan-colored, and both are wrong: the person who says the sky is blue, and the person who says the sky is azure.

And on it goes.

Is this subjective? Again, I will say perhaps, but each person's identification of color is based on their level of knowledge. In some languages, there may be only ONE word for blue: blue. All the other shades and tones of blue are meaningless for that person due to the constraint of language, and subsequently the ability to communicate. I once knew there were 7 colors and now I know that we have discovered some 16.7 million colors. Tomorrow, that number may double.

But who is right? Each person is observing the same object, and they share commonality, but are not 100% in agreement.

If you look at a passage on, let's say, the resurrection, and I look at the same passage... and you say that the scripture is talking about the raising to life of physical, corporeal bodies, then that is your blue, or azure, or cyan. If I look at the same passage and say, no the resurrection has already occurred because we are no longer "dead" (in our trespasses) and "dead" in our awareness of Jehovah God, then this is me seeing a shade or hue that you aren't seeing. It doesn't make you right, it doesn't make you wrong. Nor me, the same.

If you are going to insist that I must see your azure, blue, or cyan, in order to be right, then we're talking about rightness, and no longer about righteousness. And the same is true of me: if I am going to insist that you see the same color as I do where the resurrection is concerned, then I am emphasizing rightness over righteousness.

Resurrection is "blue," the basic color itself. "A raising to life." You and I perceive different hues or tones as regards that blue (resurrection). Neither of us are wrong as long as we agree that it's blue, regardless of the hue/tone we can see. But because we know and now are able to see the nuances of the color blue, off we go in our respective direction, debating what that blue IS. It's blue, but we're not content with that. We insist that okay, it's blue... but it's REALLY azure, or cyan, or whatever.

--Timothy,
a believer.

 

Which takes me back to my earlier question: what you are presently in error on in your present understanding of the scriptures?

--Timothy,
a believer.

 

Yet the evidence is there: you have had a change of understanding on one thing or another where the scriptures have been opened to you. You used to believe something that was true, and now you believe something else that is true.

In hindsight you know now that what you thought and believed true before --turned out to be something else.

So let me ask: were you wrong in or about what you believed before?

I'm just looking for a yes or no, please. I have no sinister motives here, or anything, so I don't want to leave you feeling like you have to hedge your bet and qualify your answer.

--Timothy,
a believer.

 

I wouldn't say that I subscribe to his explanation, but he offered an otherwise good summation of how "covenant theology" approaches the Bible.

Where the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are concerned, I simply do not know what, if anything, comes of them. The apostle Paul writes that a blindness has come upon them until the Gentile Christians have been grafted into the Tree of Life, as it were. With this, as far as I have been able to determine, the genealogical records were destroyed when the Temple was razed to the ground; there are those who insist that the only genealogical records destroyed had to do with the priesthood. Still others interpret this to mean that at some point in the future, the eyes of the Jews will be opened and they will be converted to Christianity-- at least the ones that hope to survive.

Lots of opinions. Me, I don't know. Whatever happens, it will happen according to Jehovah's Will. It's not like I'm going to throw down my crown because the Jewish people are back in the fold.

But the way of looking at the Bible in that manner connects with me, and answers a lot of questions I used to have and be all OCD over. Instead of anxiety, I've found peace. And in these times, that is a precious thing.

--Timothy,
a believer.

 

Some people are good at nutting things out by themselves in their own head, but for most people, discussing, and even arguing, points of difference helps to clarify and improve one's own understanding and ability to reason and convey one's thoughts in a more precise and understandable way - plus, 'where two or three are gathered in My Name . . . '

Otherwise, why 'make sure of all things . . .' or 'test the inspired expressions . . .' etc. if we all have 'our own facts and truth,' as the woke mob is trying to convince us of?

And I don't mean to insinuate that this is what you meant.



Harry

 

I was originally going to respond with how the apostle Paul was absolutely convicted that he was right, and how far he was willing to go to demonstrate his rightness, even seeing to the deaths of Jewish Christians... until Jesus himself set the man straight. And I was going to point out how there wasn't a single believer alive in Paul's day who would've been able to convince him that he was in error. That it very well can be the same with us, today, even.

But then I read the above from you and after prayerfully reflecting on it all last night, and again this morning as I woke and began getting around for the day, I will simply take my leave from the contentiousness, that there might be peace.

So Abram said to Lot, “Please let there be no contention between you and me, or between your herdsmen and my herdsmen. After all, we are brothers. Is not the whole land before you? Now separate yourself from me. If you go to the left, I will go to the right; if you go to the right, I will go to the left.” . . . And Abram and Lot parted company. — Genesis 13:8-9, 11b Berean Standard Bible

Submitted for perusal and consideration,
Timothy,
a believer.

 

Not an opinion and not mine but Paul's experience: 'those who have been cleansed once for all time have no consciousness of sin anymore, which is fulfillment of a new covenant promise of having 'Jehovah's law written' in one's heart.

Feel free to disbelieve Paul's witness, but your argument is with him and God, not me.

Before they can rule they need to live an earthly existence with God's law written on their hearts, having the mind of Christ, and endure faithful to the end.

All members of Abraham's seed are in a 'special position;' that is what Christianity and the NT are all about, nothing else, something every Christian would know; but I imagine that the 'diversity, equity and inclusion' mob are not too happy about it, and they are recruiting right now.


Harry