best and favorite commentary set

[ugotdave]

David

I do not have Carson's commentary, do you have it?
If so, what does it say?


I was not very familiar with NCT until you asked the question, so I googled it and read some.



So, correct me if I am wrong, but in short this is what I learned.



New Covenant Theology: New Covenant Theology believes that the New Covenant law of Christ replaces the Old Covenant law of Moses.



I believe the exact opposite; I believe that there in continuity throughout the entire scriptures. Gen – Rev, one big book, progressively revealing itself and building precept on precept.



I would have to say, that if NCT says that the New Covenant, being Jer 31, replaces the Old Covenant, we have again, some scriptures to reconcile.

Mat 5:17

Gal 3:17



I would submit this, that Jesus had a perfect opportunity in Mat 5:17-20 to expound on and promote NCT, but he says the exact opposite.



Jesus says, I am paraphrasing - Don't think that I am here to destroy the Scriptures, I did not come to destroy them, but to confirm or establish them.



Thank you David for giving me the opportunity to share.

I hope we can continue our dialog. I have learned a lot, thus far.

[Gontroppo]

Hi Dave.
Thanks for your thoughts.
A good book on the relationship of the Old and New Testaments is Continuity and Discontinuity, edited by John Feinberg. It has articles by those who are from the Continiuty camp [Covenant theology] and those who are from the Discontinuity camp [Dispensationalists] and those who like to have a bit both ways, but are more in the Discontinuity camp [New Covenant Theology folk].

One thing the book reveals is that all camps share some common ground and that all believe in elements of continuity and discontinuity.

I still haven't finished the whole book, but enjoy it every time I read bits of it!

I'm more or less NCT and feel that CT overemphasises the continuity at the expense of the obvious discontinuity between the testaments.

[ugotdave]

David, Have you ever sat back and wondered why we call it the "Old Teatament & New Testament"?
I think I'll do some research on this.
I'll let you know what I find out.

Have a great week my friend!!

[Gontroppo]

Sure have, Dave.
I think the language comes from the bible itself, especially the King James Version:

Jesus talks about a new testament in his giving otu the wine at the passover meal with the disciples:

Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

and Paul uses this language in 2 Corinthians:
2 Corinthians 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

2 Corinthians 3:14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.

David McKay
www.davidmckay.info

[ugotdave]

David,

Check this out, I looked up the scriptures you found for me.

I found that in the original language the word "New" was not used in Matthew 26:28. I guess it was added by the translators.

Also, when I read 2 Corinthians 3:14 in context, it has a different meaning as well, the word "Old" means "To be in existence for a long time; of long ago". When we hear the word old we possibly think of something that is, obsolete or inferior because of its age, but not the case here, in fact the word “ancient” would have been a better choice for 2 Cor 3:14.

2 Cor 3:6 does use the word "New". It appears that Paul is quoting Jer 31:31 here. I have to read all of 2 Cor and Jeremiah to get the context of this passage and better understand it. It's late here, so I will have to read it tomorrow.

I'll keep you posted David on what I find.

[vr8ce]

][/color]Check this out, I looked up the scriptures you found for me.

Wherever you looked them up, they either didn't have notes or you ignored them. Next time, look them up in BW.

I found that in the original language the word "New" was not used in Matthew 26:28. I guess it was added by the translators.

See the BW NIV notes, or the NET notes, or the NAU notes, or...

Also, when I read 2 Corinthians 3:14 in context, it has a different meaning as well, the word "Old" means "To be in existence for a long time; of long ago". When we hear the word old we possibly think of something that is, obsolete or inferior because of its age, but not the case here, in fact the word “ancient” would have been a better choice for 2 Cor 3:14.

That's not what I think of when I hear "old", so there's no "we" there, only "you". Old conveys perfectly what Paul was saying, especially since it's contrast to the "new" covenant.

Good luck on your investigation, and my compliments on your enthusiasm.

Vince

[ugotdave]

Vince,
Hello!


My findings of Mat 26:28 was that the word “New” was not in the original manuscripts.
I said “I found that in the original language the word "New" was not used in Matthew 26:28. I guess it was added by the translators.” Meaning that the Greek word for "New" was not found in the Greek manuscripts and that“King Jimmy’s” translators added the word “New” to the English translation. I might be wrong in assuming the King Jimmy’s translator added the word “New”, but the word "New" does not appear in any original Greek manuscripts.

I also looked at the NET, and the KJV notes. The NET claims that this is a “homoioteleuton”, scribal error. That’s possible. The parallel verses agree, Luke 22:20
1Cor 11:25, etc have the word “New” there in English and Greek. Vince, don’t misunderstand me, I agree that the Messiah shed His Blood to establish a covenant, Jer 31 say that The Almighty will make a New Covenant with the house.

But, there are no original Greek manuscripts, at least the ones we have to date, that have the word “New” in the text for Mat 26:28. If you have one please share it. And that was my whole point for Mat 26:28, and still is.


Lets solve this issue before we move on to the next.

[vr8ce]

My findings of Mat 26:28 was that the word “New” was not in the original manuscripts.

Your findings were wrong, which was my point, and why I pointed you to the notes so you wouldn't have to take my word for it.

Meaning that the Greek word for "New" was not found in the Greek manuscripts... but the word "New" does not appear in any original Greek manuscripts.

Again, incorrect. In fact, just the opposite.

But, there are no original Greek manuscripts, at least the ones we have to date, that have the word “New” in the text for Mat 26:28.

Again... well, you get the idea. Read *all* of the NET notes, or the NIV notes. They both explicitly contradict what you have repeated three times now. Repeating yourself will not make it so.

Vince

[Michael Hanel]

I think Dave *is* saying what he wants to, it just may not be coming out right. This is the NET Note in full

Although most witnesses read kainh/j (kaineÒs, "new") here, this is evidently motivated by the parallel in Luke 22:20. Apart from the possibility of homoioteleuton, there is no good reason for the shorter reading to have arisen later on. But since it is found in such good and diverse witnesses (e.g., î37, 45vid ¥ B L Z Q 0298vid 33 pc mae), the likelihood of homoioteleuton becomes rather remote.

Thus the note itself contradicts Dave's final sentence "But, there are no original Greek manuscripts, at least the ones we have to date, that have the word “New” in the text for Mat 26:28. If you have one please share it. And that was my whole point for Mat 26:28, and still is." because as it says MOST witnesses do have "new" in the text. So your point falls there. However, if you want to be sneaky on what you mean by "original Greek manuscripts" please be my guest, just be aware that you are confusing to others....

[ugotdave]

Vince,

Using BW, what Greek Translation do you see the word "kainh/j" in for Matthew 26:28 GNT, BNT, BNM, etc?

I want to say something about the notes, but we need to clear this up first.