The Old Covenant has been obliterated (Hebrews 8:13).

[Cow Poke]

From Barnes' Notes...

Hebrews 9:16
For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
For where a testament is - This is the same word - διαθήκη diathēkē - which in Hebrews 8:6, is rendered "covenant." For the general signification of the word, see note on that verse. There is so much depending, however, on the meaning of the word, not only in the interpretation of this passage, but also of other parts of the Bible, that it may be proper to explain it here more at length. The word - διαθήκη diathēkē - occurs in the New Testament thirty-three times. It is translated "covenant" in the common version, in Luke 1:72; Acts 3:25; Acts 7:8; Romans 9:4; Romans 11:27; Galatians 3:15, Galatians 3:17; Galatians 4:24; Ephesians 2:12; Hebrews 8:6, Hebrews 8:9, "twice," Hebrews 8:10; Hebrews 9:4, "twice," Hebrews 10:16; Hebrews 12:24; Hebrews 13:20. In the remaining places it is rendered "testament;" Matthew 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25; 2 Corinthians 3:6, 2 Corinthians 3:14; Hebrews 7:22; Hebrews 9:15-17, Hebrews 9:20; Revelation 11:19. In four of those instances (Matthew 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20, and 1 Corinthians 11:25), it is used with reference to the institution or celebration of the Lord's Supper. In the Septuagint it occurs not far from 300 times, in considerably more than 200 times of which it is the translation of the Hebrew word בּרית beriyt.


There's MUCH MORE, and if you want to write a thesis on "the birth of the Church", have at it! But the COVENANT came into force at the Death of the Testator.

[Cow Poke]

I pointed out this to you again Post #3 but you just wanted to continue being "divisive".

But, MOM, HE STARTED IT!!!!!

You accuse me of what you do.

You come up with these legalistic nitpicky things upon which you want to base your theology, and I oppose them. Do you REALLY expect to bring up this stuff on a DEBATE FORUM and be unopposed?

[foudroyant]

[Cow Poke]

From Barnes on 2 Corinthians 3:6
who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life (2 Corinthians 3:6, NASB).

And I have never seen a more "letter of the law" kind of guy than you.

CLEARLY, the New Covenant could NOT be in effect while the testator was alive.

Do you DISPUTE that the NEW COVENANT could NOT be in force while Christ was alive on this earth?

[foudroyant]

Man, you are clueless.

Already shown it took the Spirit to initiate the New Covenant but you want to be "divisive".

[Cow Poke]

Man, you are clueless.

Already shown it took the Spirit to initiate the New Covenant but you want to be "divisive".

hehehe.... no, Foud.... you start these long threads with all this "documentation" of a point you really have a hard time making.... you are a "letter of the law" man, and there is little, if any, GRACE in you.

The New Testament was in the Blood of Christ -- HE SAID so... and the Testament is void until the Testator dies.

[foudroyant]

No, I simply choose not to play fairy tale word definition games as you do.
It is in the blood of Christ and it is applied when one "contacts" the Spirit.
To be "in Christ" means to have the Spirit. If one does not have the Spirit then they are not "in Christ" (Romans 8:9) - His body being the church (Colossians 1:24).

[Cow Poke]

No, I simply choose not to play fairy tale word definition games as you do.

Oh? Care to demonstrate a "fairy tale word definition" on my part?

I believe Jesus --- you, not so much.

Let's look at your OP again...

For example, here....

8. David Peterson: (Acts 1:26): It is important to observe that there are no further examples of such decision making in the NT. As those who were about to enjoy the benefits of the New Covenant, the apostles were using a practice that was sanctioned by God but belonged to the old era. It took place before Pentecost, when the Spirit was poured out in a way that signified a new kind of relationship between God and his people. From Luke's emphasis on the Spirit's role in giving wisdom, guidance, and direction, it would appear that the apostolic example on this occasion is not to be followed by Christians today (Pillar New Testament Commentary, Acts, page 128-129).

Note the phrase "about to enjoy the benefits of the New Covenant".... It was ALREADY in effect, at the Death of the Testator.... the role of the Holy Spirit here was not to INSTITUTE the New Covenant, but to "give widsdom, guidance, and direction".

That's from YOUR OP, Foud. Right there in black and white. (unless, of course, your text is defaulted to some other color )

[foudroyant]

[Cow Poke]

1. A fairy tale definition on your part is found in Post #9. You refuse to believe either citation concerning "Spirit".

Nope. Simply not true. And your false accusation that I "refuse" to accept something concerning a "citation" is a FAR cry from a "fairy tale definition" on my part.

Shame shame, Foud.

Lemme ask you this, Foud.... do you ever talk about love, or grace, or forgiveness? and are you ever involved in anything like personal soul winning? Just curious.

[foudroyant]

I cite dictionaries. You refuse to believe what they say. You cite...yourself

Welcome to the pathetic CowPoke world of make believe.

One day perhaps you may realize to put away childish ideas (cf. 1 Corinthians 13:11).

Love and grace - oh yeah the qualities you exemplify like in Post #18:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...rd-Jesus/page2

[Cow Poke]

I cite dictionaries. You refuse to believe what they say. You cite...yourself

Actually, I was citing Barnes. And I'm not he!

Welcome to the pathetic CowPoke world of make believe.

So very Cristian and mature of you.

One day perhaps you may realize to put away childish ideas

But I ENJOY reading your stuff!!!!

Love and grace - oh yeah the qualities you exemplify like in Post #18:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...rd-Jesus/page2

you missed the one about soul-winning. I'm just curious.

Also, what exactly is your point? Suppose you are right, and the New Covenant did NOT come into play until Pentecost. So what? What does that mean? WHY does it matter?

[foudroyant]

1. I'm talking about a dictionary/lexicon that defines "Spirit".
2. I didn't miss anything. I choose if I want to respond to morons or not. Sometimes I do while sometimes I don't..and sometimes I just throw garbage at 'em.

[Cow Poke]

1. I'm talking about a dictionary/lexicon that defines "Spirit".

Ya don't need a dictionary definition when ya got the real thing!

2. I didn't miss anything. I choose if I want to respond to morons or not. Sometimes I do while sometimes I don't..and sometimes I just throw garbage at 'em.

yes, VERY Christian of you.... Spirit led, no doubt!

Look, Foud, I apologize for hurting your widdle feewins, and I promise I'll be nicer.....

NOBODY ELSE seems interested in conversing with you, so, again I'll ask.....

Foud,

Can you pretty please explain to me why it matters whether the New Covenant came into effect at the Death of the Testator, or at Pentecost?

Pretty please?

Your buddy, CP

[foudroyant]

From the OP: The Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible: The primary reference to Pentecost in the NT is in connection with the pouring of the Holy Spirit to dwell in the church (Acts 2:1). This event was in answer to the explicit promise of Christ (Jn. 16:7, 13; Acts 1:4, 14). It is almost universally agreed among theologians that Pentecost marks the beginning of the church as an institution (4:783, Pentecost, C.L. Feinberg).

This was pointed out again to you in Post #3.

And then again in Post #15

and you still ask the same question.

Dense