A New Covenant With The House Of Israel, And With The House Of Judah

[Genevanpreacher]

SInce I believe that God has preserved His words for us the way He wanted to in the ENGLISH KJV, then I must assume that the Lord meant for us to understand some sort of difference between Covenant and Testament, if nothing else in a connotative way.  Maybe they come from the same Greek word, but in my mind this only demonstrates the insufficiency of the Greek here.  The Lord is attempting to differentiate between the OT Covenants, primarily to PHYSICAL Israel, and the New TESTAMENT given to the Church. 

 

It is also noteworthy that the term Covenant appears 14/20 in the NT in the Book of Hebrews, and only 3 times in the Pauline Epistles.  Hebrews is one of the most difficult book in the NT to interpret.  Matthew, Acts, and Hebrews cause more doctrinal stumblingblocks for the New Testament Church Age than any other books in the NT, so I am always suspicious of those who want to START in one of these books to prove their case.  Case in point, the title of this Book of the Bible in question should be a huge "warning bell" to the reader - "HEBREWS."  I am a Gentile through and through, not a Hebrew.  Thus, much of the content of this difficult book is pointed to the HEBREWS, and how Christ has partially fulfilled the requirements of the OT LAW.  However, as the OP notes, not ALL of the OT Law and Covenant has been fulfilled literally.  We do not replace Israel, nor are "included" in the New Covenant with Israel.  The OT promises were very specific regarding the PHYSICAL seed of Abraham, Isaac, and JacOB, and the PHYSICAL Land grants, and the PHYSICAL resurrection of David to rule over PHYSICAL Israel in their promised PHYSICAL land.  There is no getting around this, unless one just blithely dismisses 75% of the Bible.

The Bible Believing Christians throughout this present age have been noted to base their doctrine primarily on Paul, i.e. Romans through Philemon, recognizing that while all of the Bible is written FOR us (Romans 15:4), not all of the Bible is written TO us (i.e. the Church). 

 

In Christ,

 

I was just thinking, Schwenke has been kinda silent.

I knew you would say these things and you did not let me down. 

 

By the way, ever wonder about your lineage?

You are Caucasian. You know, from Caucasia? (saw you on the video discussion)

If you have never looked up the area, do it sometime.

Maybe you are Hebrew.

Caucasia/Caucasian Mountains are north of the land of Israel, maybe you are of the 10 lost tribes?

They were Hebrews. 

 

So maybe, just maybe the book of Hebrews in our Bible, not only the 'Jewish' book, but the book of the 'followers of Christ Jesus the Son of the Living God' is for us.

Whether Jew or not, the Bible is for followers and believers everywhere, no matter the time or place of the book or writing.

So discounting God's decision of being Lord of his children in all ages, does nothing to gain my admiration. Of course you do not desire that, I know.

But the scriptures are and were there for our learning, til Jesus was revealed in the flesh as the Christ. The 'One' followers of God Almighty have

been waiting for for 40 centuries, to be 'God among us', and the Redeemer of Mankind.

 

He didn't spend all of the past history and countless lives to give us a book that wasn't for us.

Jews didn't carry the Gospels down through the centuries, it was 'others' who did, the vast majority of Christians for the last 20 centuries were Europeans.

We didn't carry the 'book' for anyone else than the whole world!

 

That is who the Gospel is for!

 

By the way, if a 'Jew' became a believer, they became 'gentile' to the Jews, and I am not just speaking of the Jewish blood descendants, but converts and proselytes. 

[Steve Schwenke]

"maybe you are Hebrew"

 

- my goodness, what a stretch of the imagination.  What conjecture!  Can you prove this?  NOBody in my family has ever hinted at this being a remote possibility. 

so what are you now?  A proponent of the Armstrong's One World Church of God?  Are you a proponent of British Israelism?  Are you teaching that Gentiles are not really Gentiles, but the 10 lost tribes of Israel? 

Nuts, man, nuts! - Pecan, cashew, peanuts, macadamia, walnut, hazelnut - nuts!
 

 

"He didn't spend all of past history and countless lives to give us a book that wasn't for us."

 

Read my post again carefully.  I said, "All of the Bible is written FOR us (Rom. 15:4), but not all of the Bible is written TO us. " 

Got it?

 

The Pauline Epistles are written directly to the Church. 

The OT Law was written to the OT Israel, and anyone who wanted to be a believer in Jehovah.  They didn't have Pauline doctrine - they had the OT Law.  It was written TO them.  We can learn many things from the OT, but the doctrine in the OT is for Israel, and differs greatly from NT Pauline doctrine. 

They had to offer sacrifices - we don't.

They had to keep the dietary laws - we don't.

They had to OBserve the feast days - we don't.

They had to tithe - we don't.

The Covenant God made with Abraham, Isaac, JacOB, and Israel (as a nation) was primarily physical - physical, material blessings, physical land, a physical kingdom. 

The promises God has made to the NT believer are primarily spiritual - answered prayer, supply for needs (implying that we may be materially poor, but spiritually rich), a home in heaven, complete forgiveness of sins, etc. etc. etc.

There is no mention of the physical aspects of the covenant God made with Abraham, Isaac, and JacOB anywhere in the Pauline Epistles, thus indicating that these are not included in any of the spiritual blessings we may "inherit" through Abraham by faith.

 

The Jews were not supposed to carry the message of the OT Law to the world (in OT times).  The promises God gave to them was that if they kept the Law, God's physical blessings would be so great upon their physical nation that all of the heathen nations would come to THEM.  Then they could teach them the true worship of the Lord.  This is partially fulfilled in Solomon (for example, the Queen of Sheba), although he became apostate in his later years. 

We were told to go into all the world to preach the gospel with no promise of any physical blessings.  In fact, Paul promises the exact opposite - II Tim. 3:12. 

 

This is why so many of us find it so preposterous when others say that the New Testament is a fulfillment of ALL of the promises given to Israel.  I know you hate the term "Replacement Theology" but it is an appropriate name.  Covenanter blatantly denies that he believes this, but his writings constantly confirm that what he believes is the same as what the RT's believe - it is subterfuge. 

 

All of the books on Baptist history I have read all say the same thing - true Bible Believing Christians over the last 2,000 years have tenaciously held the Pauline Epistles as the staple of NT doctrine, distinguishing between the Church and Israel. 

 

PS - I like how you completely ignored my comments of Jer. 31:34.  Nice jOB!

 

PPS - I don't always participate because I work a secular jOB outside of the church, and sometimes I have to work a lot of OT.

[Genevanpreacher]

- my goodness, what a stretch of the imagination.  What conjecture!  Can you prove this?  NOBody in my family has ever hinted at this being a remote possibility. 

so what are you now?  A proponent of the Armstrong's One World Church of God?  Are you a proponent of British Israelism?  Are you teaching that Gentiles are not really Gentiles, but the 10 lost tribes of Israel? 

Nuts, man, nuts! - Pecan, cashew, peanuts, macadamia, walnut, hazelnut - nuts!
 

Read my post again carefully.  I said, "All of the Bible is written FOR us (Rom. 15:4), but not all of the Bible is written TO us. " 

Got it?

 

The Pauline Epistles are written directly to the Church. 

The OT Law was written to the OT Israel, and anyone who wanted to be a believer in Jehovah.  They didn't have Pauline doctrine - they had the OT Law.  It was written TO them.  We can learn many things from the OT, but the doctrine in the OT is for Israel, and differs greatly from NT Pauline doctrine. 

They had to offer sacrifices - we don't.

They had to keep the dietary laws - we don't.

They had to OBserve the feast days - we don't.

They had to tithe - we don't.

The Covenant God made with Abraham, Isaac, JacOB, and Israel (as a nation) was primarily physical - physical, material blessings, physical land, a physical kingdom. 

The promises God has made to the NT believer are primarily spiritual - answered prayer, supply for needs (implying that we may be materially poor, but spiritually rich), a home in heaven, complete forgiveness of sins, etc. etc. etc.

There is no mention of the physical aspects of the covenant God made with Abraham, Isaac, and JacOB anywhere in the Pauline Epistles, thus indicating that these are not included in any of the spiritual blessings we may "inherit" through Abraham by faith.

 

The Jews were not supposed to carry the message of the OT Law to the world (in OT times).  The promises God gave to them was that if they kept the Law, God's physical blessings would be so great upon their physical nation that all of the heathen nations would come to THEM.  Then they could teach them the true worship of the Lord.  This is partially fulfilled in Solomon (for example, the Queen of Sheba), although he became apostate in his later years. 

We were told to go into all the world to preach the gospel with no promise of any physical blessings.  In fact, Paul promises the exact opposite - II Tim. 3:12. 

 

This is why so many of us find it so preposterous when others say that the New Testament is a fulfillment of ALL of the promises given to Israel.  I know you hate the term "Replacement Theology" but it is an appropriate name.  Covenanter blatantly denies that he believes this, but his writings constantly confirm that what he believes is the same as what the RT's believe - it is subterfuge. 

 

All of the books on Baptist history I have read all say the same thing - true Bible Believing Christians over the last 2,000 years have tenaciously held the Pauline Epistles as the staple of NT doctrine, distinguishing between the Church and Israel. 

 

PS - I like how you completely ignored my comments of Jer. 31:34.  Nice jOB!

 

PPS - I don't always participate because I work a secular jOB outside of the church, and sometimes I have to work a lot of OT.

 

No, I am not a 'follower' of those type of people.

But I do see the validity of the question of 'who' we are.

 

By the way, there are doctrines and beliefs in 'other' religions and so-called faiths that are the same as ours, yet that does not make them wrong to believe.

Church of christ cult immerses. That surely does not mean we shouldn't.

 

Just because I question the possibility of someones familial lineage does not make me a follower of anyone in particular.

I also like the books between the testaments, that doesn't make me Catholic.

(Shopping at Walmart does not make one a drunk, because they sell liquor.)

 

By the way, I grew up with a lot of Jewish people in my past. Their kids were freckle faced red haired and brown haired kids, just like the rest of us common folk.

We all looked the same.

In elementary school, you couldn't tell the difference between, what they termed 'Christian' families and them until Christmastime.

Then everyone knew who the minority was. My family was one of about 3 families in our neighborhood that had a christmas tree.

Their celebrating showed who they were, all the kids in my school were bringing in their multitude of new toys for days. 

Oh well, enough flashbacks.

 

Just saying, what is the prOBlem with wondering, that since my 'race' looks just like theirs, why is it 'wrong' to consider the possibility?

And with Jews being less than 0.2 % of the worlds population (according to The Jewish Press at jewishpress.com), hardly seems like an impossibility.

Genesis 22:17,18, Hebrews 11:12, etc.,...

[beameup]

 
 

Read my post again carefully.  I said, "All of the Bible is written FOR us (Rom. 15:4), but not all of the Bible is written TO us. " 

Got it?

 

The Pauline Epistles are written directly to the Church. 

The OT Law was written to the OT Israel, and anyone who wanted to be a believer in Jehovah.  They didn't have Pauline doctrine - they had the OT Law.  It was written TO them.  We can learn many things from the OT, but the doctrine in the OT is for Israel, and differs greatly from NT Pauline doctrine. 

They had to offer sacrifices - we don't.

They had to keep the dietary laws - we don't.

They had to OBserve the feast days - we don't.

They had to tithe - we don't.

The Covenant God made with Abraham, Isaac, JacOB, and Israel (as a nation) was primarily physical - physical, material blessings, physical land, a physical kingdom. 

 

 

 

"The Twelve" in Jerusalem, headed by Peter, continued to OBserve the Law.  This is where the Gospel of the Circumcision differs from Paul's Gospel of the Uncircumcision.

The Gospel of the Circumcision stressed to the Nation of Israel that Jesus the Messiah was offered up for the sins of the Nation (Yom Kippor) as well as individual sins.

"The Twelve" in Jerusalem were devoted to the conversion of the Nation of Israel in order to usher in the return of the King to set-up his Kingdom on earth.

OBviously this never occurred, however, God "left the door open" at least until 70 A.D. when the Temple was destroyed as well as Jerusalem.

 

Several hundred years later, the Roman Catholic Church became the State Religion under the Emperor, and later the Pope, and Replacement Theology was developed (which persists to this day).

 

Now, in these "latter days", suddenly the Nation of Israel reappears, and those who "bought into" Replacement Theology over the last 1,500 years are scrambling to patch the holes in their theology.

It's a matter of pride to never admit that you are wrong or have been misled.

 

But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me,

as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;  Galatians 2:7

[Steve Schwenke]

Here is another great passage regarding the New Covenant with Israel that is absolutely crystal clear - it cannot refer to the Christian Church, and it is not being fulfilled today.

 

Jeremiah 32:36-44

I will post a couple of verses from this passage with comments.

 

v. 37 - "Behold, I will gather them (ISRAEL) out of all countries, whither I have driven them in mine anger, and in my fury, and in great wrath; and I will bring them again to THIS PLACE (the promised land!), and I will cause them to dwell safely:

 

Sorry, this has not been fulfilled as yet.  It certainly does not apply to the NT Church.  It was not fulfilled in Ezra/Nehemiah because the rest of the passage forbids it. 

For example:

v. 39 "And I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me forever, for the good of them, and of their children after them:"

 

Again, Jeremiah is speaking to ISRAEL.  The message is that they are restored to the land, there will be a change on a spiritual level that will affect the way they think.   They were not of one mind in Nehemiah (Neh. 3:5), nor were they OBedient unto the Law (Neh. 13 brings out several issues they were guilty of.)

 

v. 40 "And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me."

 

This has not happened yet.  Israel turned away from the Lord in Ezra/Nehemiah, and Malachi, and even in the gospels and early parts of Acts, they rejected the Lord Jesus Christ.  The covenant promised here is with genetic Israel, and deals with God bringing them out of captivity and putting them into the land promised to Abraham, Isaac, and JacOB.  There is absolutely no connection to the NT Church here.

 

v. 41 "Yea, I will rejoice over them to do them good, and I will PLANT THEM IN THIS LAND assuredly with my whole heart and with my whole soul"

 

How much clearer can you get?  The NT church is never promised any land!  And this covenant is to be an EVERLASTING COVENANT (v. 40)!  Were they in the land after 70 AD?  Was going doing them good in 70 AD? 

 

THe entire chapter is an illustration of God's promise of a restored kingdom.  He had Jeremiah buy a piece of land from his uncle to illustrate that while judgment was forthcoming under Nebuchadnezzar, there would be a restoration, and the terms of this restoration were FOREVER.

 

In Christ,

[Genevanpreacher]

Here is another great passage regarding the New Covenant with Israel that is absolutely crystal clear - it cannot refer to the Christian Church, and it is not being fulfilled today.

 

Jeremiah 32:36-44

I will post a couple of verses from this passage with comments.

 

v. 37 - "Behold, I will gather them (ISRAEL) out of all countries, whither I have driven them in mine anger, and in my fury, and in great wrath; and I will bring them again to THIS PLACE (the promised land!), and I will cause them to dwell safely:

 

Sorry, this has not been fulfilled as yet.  It certainly does not apply to the NT Church.  It was not fulfilled in Ezra/Nehemiah because the rest of the passage forbids it. 

For example:

v. 39 "And I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me forever, for the good of them, and of their children after them:"

 

Again, Jeremiah is speaking to ISRAEL.  The message is that they are restored to the land, there will be a change on a spiritual level that will affect the way they think.   They were not of one mind in Nehemiah (Neh. 3:5), nor were they OBedient unto the Law (Neh. 13 brings out several issues they were guilty of.)

 

v. 40 "And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me."

 

This has not happened yet.  Israel turned away from the Lord in Ezra/Nehemiah, and Malachi, and even in the gospels and early parts of Acts, they rejected the Lord Jesus Christ.  The covenant promised here is with genetic Israel, and deals with God bringing them out of captivity and putting them into the land promised to Abraham, Isaac, and JacOB.  There is absolutely no connection to the NT Church here.

 

v. 41 "Yea, I will rejoice over them to do them good, and I will PLANT THEM IN THIS LAND assuredly with my whole heart and with my whole soul"

 

How much clearer can you get?  The NT church is never promised any land!  And this covenant is to be an EVERLASTING COVENANT (v. 40)!  Were they in the land after 70 AD?  Was going doing them good in 70 AD? 

 

THe entire chapter is an illustration of God's promise of a restored kingdom.  He had Jeremiah buy a piece of land from his uncle to illustrate that while judgment was forthcoming under Nebuchadnezzar, there would be a restoration, and the terms of this restoration were FOREVER.

 

In Christ,

 

Interesting, thanks.

I will read this over later. 

 

*I read it - sounds like eternity to me, not a 'millennium' thing.

After the resurrection of Ezekiel 38 maybe. Both houses will be raised up and will 'be with the Lord forever'.

Since he is talking to them, they are to whom he would direct what was 'a happenin'.

And the only time 'forever' happens is when eternity sets in.

And that would only happen to people who believe in Jesus Christ with all their heart.

The lost never get to be 'with God', only believers.

That makes it the 'church'.

[Covenanter]

- my goodness, what a stretch of the imagination.  What conjecture!  Can you prove this?  NOBody in my family has ever hinted at this being a remote possibility. 

so what are you now?  A proponent of the Armstrong's One World Church of God?  Are you a proponent of British Israelism?  Are you teaching that Gentiles are not really Gentiles, but the 10 lost tribes of Israel? 

Nuts, man, nuts! - Pecan, cashew, peanuts, macadamia, walnut, hazelnut - nuts!

 

I can relate to that - nuts are a staple part of my low carb, high fat diet - I'm diabetic.

 

But the point made is that we do not know who is physically descended from Abraham. What we do know is that many thousands were converted soon after Pentecost, & continued to be converted as recorded in Acts. Zechariah predicts the deliverance of 1/3. Zec. 13:9 Revelation speaks of 144,000 firstfruits. Rev. 7: 3 14:4 They are "firstfruits" so must be those Jews converted in the first century, not some future generation. These were disowned by the unrepentant Jews, & so became aligned with the believers, Jew & Gentile as one redeemed people of God.

 

They would not have maintained the Mosaic Law beyond such practices as circumcision & Sabbath keeping & within a generation or so would cease to identified as of Jewish descent. But there were over 100,000 converted Jews in the first century & they had the Gospel promise for their children. Acts 2:39 60 generations have passed since Pentecost. Who knows who is of Abrahamic descent & not necessarily the Ashkenazi Jews? Jewish descent is of no significance as far as the Gospel is concerned.
 

Read my post again carefully.  I said, "All of the Bible is written FOR us (Rom. 15:4), but not all of the Bible is written TO us. " 

Got it?

 

The Pauline Epistles are written directly to the Church. No - to churches, with application to all believers, aka "the church." While the other letters may be considered "general" they had to have a recipient, & as "general epistles" may be considered to intended for all believers, aka "the church."

The OT Law was written to the OT Israel, and anyone who wanted to be a believer in Jehovah.  They didn't have Pauline doctrine - they had the OT Law.  It was written TO them.  We can learn many things from the OT, but the doctrine in the OT is for Israel, and differs greatly from NT Pauline doctrine. 

They had to offer sacrifices - we don't.

They had to keep the dietary laws - we don't.

They had to OBserve the feast days - we don't.

They had to tithe - we don't.

However, the tabernacle & the rituals & sacrifices were not sufficient - only in Christ, & because of Christ, were they acceptable to God. Without faith they were worthless. Without Christ, & without the Christian Gospel they were of no value. e.g Heb. 11:39-40  

The Covenant God made with Abraham, Isaac, JacOB, and Israel (as a nation) was primarily physical - physical, material blessings, physical land, a physical kingdom. 

They are described in physical terms, but required a spiritual relationship with God. Even circumcision had to be of the heart.   

The promises God has made to the NT believer are primarily spiritual - answered prayer, supply for needs (implying that we may be materially poor, but spiritually rich), a home in heaven, complete forgiveness of sins, etc. etc. etc.

There is no mention of the physical aspects of the covenant God made with Abraham, Isaac, and JacOB anywhere in the Pauline Epistles, thus indicating that these are not included in any of the spiritual blessings we may "inherit" through Abraham by faith.

If the OT covenants & promises were primarily physical & believers are heirs of God & joint heirs with Christ then surely those physical blessings are ours also - & with Abraham & the patriarchs will receive them in the NH&NE when ALL God's promises & purposes will be perfectly realised. Gal. 3:7 26-29 Notice that - ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. There is no great Jew/Gentile division taught in the NT, only a saved/lost division. 

 

The Jews were not supposed to carry the message of the OT Law to the world (in OT times).  The promises God gave to them was that if they kept the Law, God's physical blessings would be so great upon their physical nation that all of the heathen nations would come to THEM.  Then they could teach them the true worship of the Lord.  This is partially fulfilled in Solomon (for example, the Queen of Sheba), although he became apostate in his later years. 

We were told to go into all the world to preach the gospel with no promise of any physical blessings.  In fact, Paul promises the exact opposite - II Tim. 3:12. 

 

This is why so many of us find it so preposterous when others say that the New Testament is a fulfillment of ALL of the promises given to Israel.  I know you hate the term "Replacement Theology" but it is an appropriate name.  Covenanter blatantly denies that he believes this, but his writings constantly confirm that what he believes is the same as what the RT's believe - it is subterfuge. 

I've never read the writings of a "replacement theologian" - it's a pejorative term used by disps. But certainly I believe that the new covenant in Jesus' blood secures salvation for ALL believers and indeed through the NC ALL the promises given to Israel are realised. If Israelis want the promises of the OT - them come to Jesus - NOW! Isa. 49:8 2 Cor. 6:2

 

All of the books on Baptist history I have read all say the same thing - true Bible Believing Christians over the last 2,000 years have tenaciously held the Pauline Epistles as the staple of NT doctrine, distinguishing between the Church and Israel. 

 

PS - I like how you completely ignored my comments of Jer. 31:34.  Nice jOB!

Did Israel cease to be a nation for 1900 years? The unbelieving Jews were scattered, & not a coherent nation. In the NH&NE all believers will comprise one holy nation, inheriting all the glorious promises of God. God cannot forget his promises, but he can keep them in a way the surprises us. I'm sure whoever is right about prophecy, Abraham & David won't be disappointed.

 

The covenant promises begin with faith, & are lived by faith, and will be fully realised in the resurrection, & not some intermediate millennial state, shared with unbelievers (as at present.)

PPS - I don't always participate because I work a secular jOB outside of the church, and sometimes I have to work a lot of OT.

[DaveW]

Covenanter,
Jewish people do not "lose their identity" in the way you are suggesting.
The vast majority know of their heritage even if they and their parents do not practice.
There would be some, sure, but in my experience "secular Jews" still know it.

And your "aka the church" jibes are simply off track.
114 times church or churches occur in the Bible, and the overwhelming majority are cleatly local church - either "churches" or "the church at....."
Of all the occurrences, there are only a few which are vague, with not one reference being clearly universal, or even suggesting it.

[Covenanter]

 See Jer. 33:17 - has that promise failed, or is it fulfilled in and by Jesus?  If he is the fulfilment, then how many more prophecies relating to Israel are fulfilled in hmm? 

 

And how many Christian Jews, from the first century, would continue as Jews through several generations? And how many remember their Jewish origins through 60 generations? 

 

In the first century, over 100,000 Jews from all around the empire and beyond were saved, and were rejected by their communities. Why should they remember their heritage beyond a generation?

[DaveW]

You are speculating.... "why should they...."

I can tell you that Jewish people keep their heritage even if they are a non practising family.

Not speculation - fact.

Many people I have known personally who freely confess to being non-practising Jews still identify as Jewish people.

Speculate away, but it doesn't change the facts.

[beameup]

Many Jews can trace their ancestry. This is another fallacious "argument" created by Replacement Theology.

[Genevanpreacher]

You are speculating.... "why should they...."

I can tell you that Jewish people keep their heritage even if they are a non practising family.

Not speculation - fact.

Many people I have known personally who freely confess to being non-practising Jews still identify as Jewish people.

Speculate away, but it doesn't change the facts.

 

I see more speculating in your post than Ians.

You have facts that people didn't forget their lineage? Sources?

No you don't, so what you seriously 'think' is like an opinion, it matters not.

No proof from a source equals no fact.

 

How about Isaiah 65:11-17 - where the Jews will be known by another name?

Maybe Baruch 2:29-35 - where the Jews would finally 'remember themselves' for who they were?

[DaveW]

I see more speculating in your post than Ians.
You have facts that people didn't forget their lineage? Sources?
No you don't, so what you seriously 'think' is like an opinion, it matters not.
No proof from a source equals no fact.

How about Isaiah 65:11-17 - where the Jews will be known by another name?
Maybe Baruch 2:29-35 - where the Jews would finally 'remember themselves' for who they were?

"Many people I have known...."

People I have my, some who I knew or know personally, have worked with, or are long term family friends.
Not opinion at all.
Sammi Nasser, Stanley Scyzeman, Mrs Lindsay, Enoah, along with others I have met in my travels.
My F-i-l used to be heavily involved as a tradesman in the Jewish community, and he was constantly talking about the unity of their community, even among those who were not religious" (his words).

No I don't have a study or statistical figures, but I have personal experience with non-practising Jews, in some cases several generations removed from Judaism, who are still aware of and proud of their Jewish heritage.
In some cases only just removed from Judaism, and in some cases still involved.

I have known some of these people for many years and through several different stages of life.
So I know this to be true.

[Invicta]

SInce I believe that God has preserved His words for us the way He wanted to in the ENGLISH KJV, then I must assume that the Lord meant for us to understand some sort of difference between Covenant and Testament, if nothing else in a connotative way.  Maybe they come from the same Greek word, but in my mind this only demonstrates the insufficiency of the Greek here.  The Lord is attempting to differentiate between the OT Covenants, primarily to PHYSICAL Israel, and the New TESTAMENT given to the Church. 

 

It is also noteworthy that the term Covenant appears 14/20 in the NT in the Book of Hebrews, and only 3 times in the Pauline Epistles.  Hebrews is one of the most difficult book in the NT to interpret.  Matthew, Acts, and Hebrews cause more doctrinal stumblingblocks for the New Testament Church Age than any other books in the NT, so I am always suspicious of those who want to START in one of these books to prove their case.  Case in point, the title of this Book of the Bible in question should be a huge "warning bell" to the reader - "HEBREWS."  I am a Gentile through and through, not a Hebrew.  Thus, much of the content of this difficult book is pointed to the HEBREWS, and how Christ has partially fulfilled the requirements of the OT LAW.  However, as the OP notes, not ALL of the OT Law and Covenant has been fulfilled literally.  We do not replace Israel, nor are "included" in the New Covenant with Israel.  The OT promises were very specific regarding the PHYSICAL seed of Abraham, Isaac, and JacOB, and the PHYSICAL Land grants, and the PHYSICAL resurrection of David to rule over PHYSICAL Israel in their promised PHYSICAL land.  There is no getting around this, unless one just blithely dismisses 75% of the Bible.

The Bible Believing Christians throughout this present age have been noted to base their doctrine primarily on Paul, i.e. Romans through Philemon, recognizing that while all of the Bible is written FOR us (Romans 15:4), not all of the Bible is written TO us (i.e. the Church). 

 

In Christ,

 

Hebrews is a Pauline epistle.

[DaveW]

Hebrews is a Pauline epistle.

Whilst I personally agree, it can not be stated categorically. The Author is not positively identified in Scripture.