The Eucharist is the New Testament

Status
Not open for further replies.
dingoling. said:
You need to take the entire teaching of scripture into consideration and not just a few verses in the book of Hebrews.
Click to expand...
so lets compare with the whole council of Scripture:
the Hebrews verses requiring a death, the prohibition against drinking blood, the Mark verses calling the drink the fruit of the vine, Jesus leaving the Last Supper stating He had been speaking figuratively, and what was accomplished on the Cross and its necessity, the remembrance can stop when Christ returns, etc
 
dingoling. said:
You need to take the entire teaching of scripture into consideration and not just a few verses in the book of Hebrews.
Click to expand...
Instead of avoiding the Hebrews verses; (like you lectionary schedule) explain them to us:
what does "must be" and and "ONLY at " mean?

" it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive.""
"the death of the one who made it must be established."
"takes effect ONLY at death,"
 
1Thess521 said:
so lets compare with the whole council of Scripture:
the Hebrews verses requiring a death, the prohibition against drinking blood, the Mark verses calling the drink the fruit of the vine, Jesus leaving the Last Supper stating He had been speaking figuratively, and what was accomplished on the Cross and its necessity, the remembrance can stop when Christ returns, etc
Click to expand...
Look at the OC. Here is post early:

Like I said the OC wasn't established when Moses received the 10 commandments.

Hebrews 9:18-21, "Hence not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood. For when every commandment had been told to all the people by Moses in accordance with the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the scroll itself and all the people, saying, “This is the blood of the covenant that God has ordained for you.” And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship."

We also see in Exodus that besides the blood, the elders and other saw the God of Israel and they had a meal.

Exodus 24:9-11, "Then Moses and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel went up, and they saw the God of Israel. Under his feet there was something like a pavement of sapphire stone, like the very heaven for clearness. God did not lay his hand on the chief men of the people of Israel; also they beheld God, and they ate and drank."

What happened in the upper room. The there was the blood of the covenant, the disciples saw the God of Israel and there was a meal.
Click to expand...
 
dingoling. said:
Like I said the OC wasn't established when Moses received the 10 commandments.

Hebrews 9:18-21, "Hence not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood. For when every commandment had been told to all the people by Moses in accordance with the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the scroll itself and all the people, saying, “This is the blood of the covenant that God has ordained for you.” And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship."

We also see in Exodus that besides the blood, the elders and other saw the God of Israel and they had a meal.

Exodus 24:9-11, "Then Moses and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel went up, and they saw the God of Israel. Under his feet there was something like a pavement of sapphire stone, like the very heaven for clearness. God did not lay his hand on the chief men of the people of Israel; also they beheld God, and they ate and drank."

What happened in the upper room. The there was the blood of the covenant, the disciples saw the God of Israel and there was a meal.
Click to expand...
I posted in post 749

Really which ot covenant are you referring to:

Five of the primary covenants in the Old Testament are the Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and the New Covenant. Each of these covenants is reflective of two of the main categories of covenants known in the Ancient Near East:

Suzerian-Vassal: This term harkens back to a time when a king would make a promise to his subjects, or a treaty between kings would be that depended on obedience to specific terms. You can think of this covenant as a conditional promise.

Royal Grant: Unlike the Suzerian-Vassal agreements, a Royal Grant requires no action on the part of the beneficiary. It is an unconditional promise given from one party to another.

reasonabletheology.org

About Reasonable Theology​

This website exists to encourage Christians to grow in their understanding of theology and doctrine. Articles are written by Clayton Kraby
reasonabletheology.org
reasonabletheology.org

Your response post 754
The covenant made at Mount Sinai between God and his people.

and in this post you say:

Like I said the OC wasn't established when Moses received the 10 commandments

So really at no stage did you answer which of the 5 covenants you are referring to. You seem confused first it is the 10 commandments and next it isn't. Confusion has only one source
 
1Thess521 said:
Instead of avoiding the Hebrews verses; (like you lectionary schedule) explain them to us:
what does "must be" and and "ONLY at " mean?

" it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive.""
"the death of the one who made it must be established."
"takes effect ONLY at death,"
Click to expand...
I get your point. I don't see a need to head down this path. But Jesus is God and he instituted the Eucharist in the upper room with his disciples.

Typology needs to be considered here too. Everything about the NC is far superior than that of the OC. It is my understanding that not only does the Eucharistic meal bring and end to all the OC sacrifices, but it is also the new Passover meal of the new exodus and the new manna - our spiritual food for our journey to the new Jerusalem. If this is true then this meal cannot be just ordinary bread and wine it has to be superior than that of the OC; it has to be super substantial.
 
Alonzo said:
They have twisted the scriptures to validate their rejection of solid orthodox teaching on this for over two thousand years. We can only pray for them at this point, only God could ever convince them.
Click to expand...
No it is RCs who twist the scriptures to validate their rejections of solid scriptural teaching. The RCC is not the real church and has taught false doctrines for centuries. We can only pray for God to open their eyes, as only God can convince them.
 
Last edited:
Alonzo said:
I myself do not care for our current head Bishop, the Pope. Now, if you could direct me to the evidence of the USCCB supporting left leaning abortion organization I would be grateful.
Click to expand...

The evidence has been presented for the last 4 years.


Alonzo said:
Also, please provide the evidence that few Catholics support me here. (I have only been posting for like 3 days). Charges are easily levelled, so proof is needed. God bless!
Click to expand...

The evidence is right in front of you.
 
dingoling. said:
I get your point. I don't see a need to head down this path. But Jesus is God and he instituted the Eucharist in the upper room with his disciples.

Typology needs to be considered here too. Everything about the NC is far superior than that of the OC. It is my understanding that not only does the Eucharistic meal bring and end to all the OC sacrifices, but it is also the new Passover meal of the new exodus and the new manna - our spiritual food for our journey to the new Jerusalem. If this is true then this meal cannot be just ordinary bread and wine it has to be superior than that of the OC; it has to be super substantial.
Click to expand...
The He in this verse is Jesus

It is the DEATH of Jesus that establishes the new covenant

If there is any other interpretation: lets see it

15 Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, (diathéké) so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant.
16 For where a will (diathéké) is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established.
17For a will (diathéké) takes effect ONLY at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive."
 
dingoling. said:
Yes, we need to pray for them. It is really sad that they don't understand the tremendous gift that God has given us in the Eucharist.

My understanding is that not only does the Eucharist bring an end to all the OC sacrifices, but it is also is the new Passover meal and the new manna from heaven. This is correct, right?
Click to expand...
Nonsense. Jesus never said it was the New Manna or the New Passover. That is Catholic rhetorical theory that is butt-backward. Jesus is our guide and Apostle Paul was instrumental in proclaiming God's truth.

Jesus never said a word about about the eucharist. Your church is making that up. He didn't say for people to literally drink wine and bread he said that people should remember his blood and body which is the New Covenant.

I Corinthians 11:25, "In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

Try to get your theological beliefs from scripture itself instead of its foundational folly.

Bad theology results in bad practices and in this case, baseless claims.
 
1Thess521 said:
The He in this verse is Jesus

It is the DEATH of Jesus that establishes the new covenant

If there is any other interpretation: lets see it

15 Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, (diathéké) so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant.
16 For where a will (diathéké) is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established.
17For a will (diathéké) takes effect ONLY at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive."
Click to expand...
Do you really think that the Catholics, the Orthodox and the Lutheran church overlooked these verses? This belief is that the bread and wine are not symbolic are all taught by these churches. Besides what we see in scripture this belief dates all the way back to the very early church. It was taught by those who were disciples of the apostles. Do you really think that would have missed this point you are making?
 
dingoling. said:
Do you really think that the Catholics, the Orthodox and the Lutheran church overlooked these verses? This belief is that the bread and wine are not symbolic are all taught by these churches. Besides what we see in scripture this belief dates all the way back to the very early church. It was taught by those who were disciples of the apostles. Do you really think that would have missed this point you are making?
Click to expand...
i think they combined paganism into Christianity:
a long held error is still an error
not all ECFs thought it was literal
there is no evidence the Apostles ever taught that.
appealing to your Church won't work

Now back to God's words

The "He" in that Hebrew verse is Jesus.
It is the DEATH of Jesus that establishes the new covenant
---->If there is any other interpretation: lets see it
 
dingoling. said:
Do you really think that the Catholics, the Orthodox and the Lutheran church overlooked these verses? This belief is that the bread and wine are not symbolic are all taught by these churches. Besides what we see in scripture this belief dates all the way back to the very early church.
Click to expand...
not all lutherans do. many lutheran groups are not believers and have taken on many ways of the deceiver.

dingoling. said:
It was taught by those who were disciples of the apostles. Do you really think that would have missed this point you are making?
Click to expand...
what disciples? name one in the nt and post scripture to support it.
 
1Thess521 said:
i think they combined paganism into Christianity:
a long held error is still an error
not all ECFs thought it was literal
there is no evidence the Apostles ever taught that.
appealing to your Church won't work

Now back to God's words

The "He" in that Hebrew verse is Jesus.
It is the DEATH of Jesus that establishes the new covenant
---->If there is any other interpretation: lets see it
Click to expand...
Whoever told you that is combined paganism with it told you wrong.
 
dingoling. said:
Whoever told you that is combined paganism with it told you wrong.
Click to expand...
stop ignoring these verses
that is not an option

The "He" in that Hebrew verse is Jesus.
It is the DEATH of Jesus that establishes the new covenant
---->If there is any other interpretation: lets see it
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top