He didnt do it.

[postroad]

God didn't restore the lost tribes of the northern kingdom to their homeland as he expressly comments in this chapter of Ezekiel.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV
Why not?

[postroad]

Also, if the new covenant is in fact the everlasting covenant referred to in chapter 37 how does this harmonise with Christian doctrine.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

[JehovahsWitness]

God didn't restore the lost tribes of the northern kingdom to their homeland as he expressly comments in this chapter of Ezekiel.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV
Why not?

When Samaria, the Capital of the Ten-Tribe kingdom of Israel fell to the Assyrians in the 8th century BCE, the nation ceased to exist as an independant kingdom. The individuals that were not killed or taken into exile, lived under foreign rule. A similar fate awaited the two-tribe nation of Judah some years later.

When Cyrus freed the Jews in 537 and supported their return to their homeland, the decree was to ALL worshippers of the Hebrew God JEHOVAH (YHWH) which would include any that formerly belonged to the ten-tribe nation. Indeed at that time the prophecy that the two former long time enemy nations (the two-tribe nation of Judah and the Ten tribe nation) would be united as one was fulfilled (see Ez 37: 16-18) . By the time Jesus walked the earth, Israelites representing all ten-tribes were once more living thoughout the rgions they inhabited prior to their exile.

So Cyrus' decree marked the fulfillment of the prophecy that the Israelites would be restored to their homeland (see 2Ch 36:22, 23; Ezr 1:1-4) .

[JehovahsWitness]

Also, if the new covenant is in fact the everlasting covenant referred to in chapter 37 how does this harmonise with Christian doctrine.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

The "new covenant" in scripture refer to that which was instigated by Jesus with his disciples. By extention it would include any (Jew or Gentile) that accepted this new arrangement for worship based, not on a literal temple, but on the ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ ( compare Jer 31: 31-34; 2 Cor 3:6)


JW





RELATED POSTS

What is a Covenant?
viewtopic.php?p=1014803#p1014803

What is "The New Covenant"?
viewtopic.php?p=776505#p776505

Are there Christians that are not part of "The New Covenant"?
viewtopic.php?p=961920#p961920

Does the bible support the idea of two different groups of Christians?
viewtopic.php?p=1022933#p1022933

What were the TERMS and conditions of "The New Covenant"?
viewtopic.php?p=776656#p776656

What is the Covenant for a kingdom?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 73#p911573

What is the ABRAHAMIC covenant ?
viewtopic.php?p=1014247#p1014247

[Zzyzx]

.

The "new covenant" in scripture refer to that which was instigated by Jesus with his disciples. By extention it would include any (Jew or Gentile) that accepted this new arrangement for worship based, not on a literal temple, but on the ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ ( compare Jer 31: 31-34; 2 Cor 3:6)

A covenant is "an agreement, usually formal, between two or more persons to do or not do something specified" www.dictionary.com/browse/covenant

What, exactly, are the terms of the "New Covenant" (who agrees to do what) and who are the parties involved?

[postroad]

[Replying to post 3 by JehovahsWitness]

The nation and peoples resulting from the return under Cyrus were dispersed in 70 AD by the Romans. Now how exactly could they be a fulfilment of Ezekiel's prophecy?

[catnip]

.

The "new covenant" in scripture refer to that which was instigated by Jesus with his disciples. By extention it would include any (Jew or Gentile) that accepted this new arrangement for worship based, not on a literal temple, but on the ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ ( compare Jer 31: 31-34; 2 Cor 3:6)

A covenant is "an agreement, usually formal, between two or more persons to do or not do something specified" www.dictionary.com/browse/covenant

What, exactly, are the terms of the "New Covenant" (who agrees to do what) and who are the parties involved?

And I would add:

Part of a Covenant can't be kept.

The Old Covenant was an agreement for the party of the second part to do something and then the party of the first part would fulfill his end of the promise. In the case of the Old Covenant it was intended to form a nation.

[JehovahsWitness]

.

The "new covenant" in scripture refer to that which was instigated by Jesus with his disciples. By extention it would include any (Jew or Gentile) that accepted this new arrangement for worship based, not on a literal temple, but on the ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ ( compare Jer 31: 31-34; 2 Cor 3:6)

A covenant is "an agreement, usually formal, between two or more persons to do or not do something specified" www.dictionary.com/browse/covenant

What, exactly, are the terms of the "New Covenant" (who agrees to do what) and who are the parties involved?

The "new covenant" (2 Cor 3:6) is an between God and spirit-anointed Christians (mediated by Jesus) to declared them (the anointed) righteous , actually having human perfection credited to them.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 3 by JehovahsWitness]

The nation and peoples resulting from the return under Cyrus were dispersed in 70 AD by the Romans. Now how exactly could they be a fulfilment of Ezekiel's prophecy?

I did not say that the dispersion of 70 CE was a fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy.

[JehovahsWitness]

And I would add:

Part of a Covenant can't be kept.

What do you mean "can't be kept"? Naturally, as with all agreements, it is possible that one or both parties not keep their part of the agreement. That is stating the obvious. What is the relevance of this statement?

And I would add:

The Old Covenant was an agreement for the party of the second part to do something and then the party of the first part would fulfill his end of the promise. In the case of the Old Covenant it was intended to form a nation.

Who in your opinion are the two parties of what you call the "Old Covenant" (I presume you are refering to the Mosaic Law Covenant) and what is it's relevance to the "The New covenant'? In short, what is the point you are making?