Predestination

Johnnybgood

Well-known member
here is the idea that makes sense based on the various verses, Just as God is love and always will be. When the Bible says God is love, it is an equality, not just something about what He currently does. If that was just meant to say that now, at this moment God is love, it would not express the truth as we understand it, if it just meant that at this time He is love. So the same for being mediator. Saying He is the mediator is not meant as something just in the present. While it is something He has done/acted on. It is more something He is.
The other part of that which no one seems to grasp is what the word "mediator" means. The court person who reconciles the plaintiff and defendant, or both civil parties, so they can approach the judge with an agreement. And from there what it means that He was a mediator using His own blood, and this He did once for all time. Christ only shed His blood once, it is not an ongoing sacrifice that He keeps making. With that one time sacrifice, the Bible says he mediated the new covenant once. There is no need to keep creating the covenant, it is in place.
Can you understand that? The need for a new covenant in His blood, which is now an eternal covenant between man and God mediated once in his blood?
some have confused the word mediator with intercessor or high priest. Now these two jesus does eternally. But these two are different offices

Please ask for clarification, or scripture if you wonder about anything specific
I read this again but you are making a circular argument and not making an argument from the text . Both Hebrews 8:6 and 1 John 4:7 use the same verb estin and the syntax is the same. So from looking at both texts I don’t see how you can make an argument for one and not the other since they are constructed the same. I believe you are letting your ideas interfere with what is being said .

Jim is our Father
Johnny is our son
Jackie is my wife
Joanne in our grandmother

How can any of those people no longer be my present relatives ?
 
Last edited:

Beloved Daughter

Super Member
When you look up a word in a lexicon and you get the meaning, what more can you do than that as far as the definition? It is what it is. I did not make it up. It is available for anyone to read. But when posters do not want to accept what an authoritative lexicon says, you end up repeating yourself. So no, it was not that sometime i heard in some lexicon somewhere... That is the kind of rude comments I get all the time. I read it in a respected lexicon. Period.
You are writing as if you know some place in the New testament where the word is used and it refers to something other than a court mediator as a symbolic reference. What scripture are you referring to? There are exactly 6 times the word is used in the New Testament. which of those are you suggesting are referencing something other than a court mediator as a symbol of what Christ did?

And as far as not being a mediator anymore? Why would we want that? A mediator helps two people (humans and God) come to an agreement about a covenant between them. Would you like to renegotiate the New Covenant? Or are you doing as others have done and confusing mediator with other of Christ's offices, like intercessor and high priest. Each office is unique and has a purpose. Are you wanting to do as others do and blend them all together?

More and more I understand that you must be using the wrong lexicon or you can't properly use the lexicon you have.
 

Sethproton

Well-known member
Why would I still need a priest if my past , present and future sins have been forgiven ? I don’t see any difference between them as a priest and mediator both work on behalf of the sinner to God. I believe both are necessary or both are not. I’m not seeing how we can split them up it doesn’t make any sense to me. I’m having trouble wrapping my head around that concept .
The trouble you are having is simple: vocabulary.
You do not care what the words mean and are just accepting vague general ideas about what the words mean.
Clarify the definitions and you will clarify how they are different

But as to why you still need a high priest, we need someone who can take us into the real holy of holies in Heaven
 
Last edited:

Sethproton

Well-known member
More and more I understand that you must be using the wrong lexicon or you can't properly use the lexicon you have.
That is doubtful that you have any idea what you are talking about and instead are just making an ungrounded opinion be what you rely on.
You do not seem to understand much about how language is used.
That is of course an exaggeration on my part, but just the fact that you have no idea what a court mediator is or what the metaphoric meaning of cuddle up is.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
The trouble you are having is simple: vocabulary.

One of the problems is your constant condescending, "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" tone.

"The trouble you are having is...."

It begs the question. You simply ASSUME that anyone who disagrees with you is ALWAYS wrong.

She do not care what the words mean

"She do not care"?

Okay, you ARE an expert in English... I'm convinced....
 

Sethproton

Well-known member
First of all, why does what anyone "wants" relevant to ANYTHING?
Basing your beliefs on what you "want", rather than what the Bible TEACHES, is a one-way path to heresy.

And you don't seem to understand the difference between "continues to mediate" and "mediates again" (ie. iterative).

And NOBODY said anything about "a new set of rules".
You're talking nonsense.
ok
 

Sethproton

Well-known member
One of the problems is your constant condescending, "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" tone.

"The trouble you are having is...."

It begs the question. You simply ASSUME that anyone who disagrees with you is ALWAYS wrong.



"She do not care"?

Okay, you ARE an expert in English... I'm convinced....
ok
 

SovereignGrace

Well-known member
For, on the one hand, there is a setting aside of a former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness (for the Law made nothing perfect), and on the other hand there is a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God. And inasmuch as it was not without an oath (for they indeed became priests without an oath, but He with an oath through the One who said to Him,
“The Lord has sworn
And will not change His mind,
You are a priest forever’”); so much the more also Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant.
[Heb. 7:18-22]

I can find no place recorded in God’s holy writ where Christ’s priesthood has ever ceased. No. Where.
 

Sethproton

Well-known member
I read this again but you are making a circular argument and not making an argument from the text . Both Hebrews 8:6 and 1 John 4:7 use the same verb estin and the syntax is the same. So from looking at both texts I don’t see how you can make an argument for one and not the other since they are constructed the same. I believe you are letting your ideas interfere with what is being said .

Jim is our Father
Johnny is our son
Jackie is my wife
Joanne in our grandmother

How can any of those people no longer be my present relatives ?
Another thing you have already been told about three times, but you are unable to grasp is the "to be" verbs and the way they are used.
I have presented this to you already, and like much of what i say, you simply ignore.
the same verb you are calling "estin" can have different usages, just like in English. You want the usage to be the same regardless of context, but language does not work that way. What that means is that you ignore context, and when you ignore context, you can miss the meaning
 

Sethproton

Well-known member
For, on the one hand, there is a setting aside of a former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness (for the Law made nothing perfect), and on the other hand there is a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God. And inasmuch as it was not without an oath (for they indeed became priests without an oath, but He with an oath through the One who said to Him,
“The Lord has sworn
And will not change His mind,
You are a priest forever’”); so much the more also Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant.
[Heb. 7:18-22]

I can find no place recorded in God’s holy writ where Christ’s priesthood has ever ceased. No. Where.
isn't that something we all agree on? Christ is a high priest forever,
 

Johnnybgood

Well-known member
The trouble you are having is simple: vocabulary.
She do not care what the words mean and are just accepting vague general ideas about what the words mean.
Clarify the definitions and you will clarify how they are different

But as to why you still need a high priest, we need someone who can take us into the real holy of holies in Heaven
Why if his mediation is over I’m already taken care of and I don’t need a priest for my sins since he atoned for them in the past .
 

Johnnybgood

Well-known member
For, on the one hand, there is a setting aside of a former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness (for the Law made nothing perfect), and on the other hand there is a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God. And inasmuch as it was not without an oath (for they indeed became priests without an oath, but He with an oath through the One who said to Him,
“The Lord has sworn
And will not change His mind,
You are a priest forever’”); so much the more also Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant.
[Heb. 7:18-22]

I can find no place recorded in God’s holy writ where Christ’s priesthood has ever ceased. No. Where.
And I cannot find where He has stopped being our mediator. The Bible says he is our priest and our mediator not was our priest and mediator .
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Another thing you have already been told about three times, but you are unable to grasp is the "to be" verbs and the way they are used.

Actually, Seth, based on YOUR statement of, ""She do not care" (link) it's pretty clear that YOU are the one who is "unable to grasp [how] the 'to be' verbs ... are used"

Case in point, where you wrote above:

"... you are unable to grasp is the ..."

We have already talked to you about predicate nominative, and the implied verb, "is".
YOU HAVE EVEN ADMITTED that the correct implied verb is "is", which is 3rd person present active indicative.

You simply don't have a leg to stand on.

So we can agree to disagree, if you refuse to accept the truth, but to accuse us of "not being able to grasp" is nothing but worthless rhetoric.

I have presented this to you already, and like much of what i say, you simply ignore.

You are wrong.
And since you refuse to accept correction, there is nothing for us to do but "ignore" your repeated false claims.

the same verb you are calling "estin" can have different usages, just like in English.

You have no clue how Greek works, since you have never studied Greek.

You want the usage to be the same regardless of context, but language does not work that way.

Why should anyone believe anything you say?



(And yes, I know.... You're going to respond to this with nothing but, "ok". I'm glad you're going to agree with me.... ;) )
 

Sethproton

Well-known member
Why if his mediation is over I’m already taken care of and I don’t need a priest for my sins since he atoned for them in the past .
Are you actually reading anything you are asking me to write? Are you.
You asked why we need a high priest forever and I told you the High Priest is the only one who can take us into the Holy of Holies in heaven, then you ask exactly the same question?
Huh?
 

SovereignGrace

Well-known member
And I cannot find where He has stopped being our mediator. The Bible says he is our priest and our mediator not was our priest and mediator .
Well, the priest is the mediator between God’s ppl and God. He represents His ppl before God as a mediator, whether it was an OT high priest or Jesus Himself.
 
Last edited:

Sethproton

Well-known member
Actually, Seth, based on YOUR statement of, ""She do not care" (link) it's pretty clear that YOU are the one who is "unable to grasp [how] the 'to be' verbs ... are used"

Case in point, where you wrote above:

"... you are unable to grasp is the ..."

We have already talked to you about predicate nominative, and the implied verb, "is".
YOU HAVE EVEN ADMITTED that the correct implied verb is "is", which is 3rd person present active indicative.

You simply don't have a leg to stand on.

So we can agree to disagree, if you refuse to accept the truth, but to accuse us of "not being able to grasp" is nothing but worthless rhetoric.



You are wrong.
And since you refuse to accept correction, there is nothing for us to do but "ignore" your repeated false claims.



You have no clue how Greek works, since you have never studied Greek.



Why should anyone believe anything you say?



(And yes, I know.... You're going to respond to this with nothing but, "ok". I'm glad you're going to agree with me.... ;) )
ok
 

Sethproton

Well-known member
Well, the priest is the mediator between God’s ppl and God. He represents His ppl before God as a mediator, wheteher it was an OT high priest or Jesus Himself.
you are on the right track, but you are missing one point. The job of a court mediator is to bring two parties into agreement so they can make a covenant. Once they are in a greement, the court mediator job is finished
 
Top