The Eucharist is the New Testament

Status
Not open for further replies.
1Thess521 said:
nope: Sola Scriptura has never meant that Scripture does not use figures of speech
Click to expand...
Which are picked and chosen to achieve the desired outcome. Of all the worldly impossible things in the bible this seems to be the only issue where the non orthodox Christian will not believe what is actually written. "Well, we have to go to Hebrews or some other biblical book to find the true meaning of what is said here" the non orthodox believer will say.

Balderdash! The words stand on their own.

Jesus said what He said and He meant what He said. It's only the desire to validate ones particular position that denies them and their veracity.
 
1Thess521 said:
the Scriptures DO explicitly state (using absolute terms; "must be" and "only") that it is the DEATH of Jesus that establishes the new covenant.
Hence the debate is over.
Click to expand...
Again, it comes down to who you believe - the Master or some biblical writer some 100 years into the future.
 
Alonzo said:
Which are picked and chosen to achieve the desired outcome. Of all the worldly impossible things in the bible this seems to be the only issue where the non orthodox Christian will not believe what is actually written. "Well, we have to go to Hebrews or some other biblical book to find the true meaning of what is said here" the non orthodox believer will say.

Balderdash! The words stand on their own.

Jesus said what He said and He meant what He said. It's only the desire to validate ones particular position that denies them and their veracity.
Click to expand...
Jesus walked out of the Last Supper and stated He had been speaking figutaivlty in the past:

No one believes that the Scriptures do not include figures of speech
 
Alonzo said:
Again, it comes down to who you believe - the Master or some biblical writer some 100 years into the future.
Click to expand...
that wont fly here:
I do not think even other Catholics believe that God's written words are less authoritative than His spoken word:

You have an extremely corrupted view of writings breathed out by God that is not taught by the CC.
You have made yourself your own Magisterium
 
1Thess521 said:
Jesus walked out of the Last Supper and stated He had been speaking figutaivlty in the past:

No one believes that the Scriptures do not include figures of speech
Click to expand...
Yes, He used parables as a teaching tool to get people to think. This time however it was the most important thing to happen ever, the action that would literally save souls. I can't imagine that He would want to be anything but crystal clear on the issue - that's what I believe.

But you go ahead, you have the free will to believe what you want and I am sure Jesus still loves you. His mercy endures forever ( for both of us to be sure).
 
Alonzo said:
Again, it comes down to who you believe - the Master or some biblical writer some 100 years into the future.
Click to expand...

? - the spoken and written words of God

In a another thread: A Catholic poster is basing his argument on the view that the spoken words of God are more authoritative than the written words of God (graphe theopneustos). the basic question he raised was: who are you going to believe: Jesus or God's written word? Is that Catholic teaching?
forums.carm.org
 
1Thess521 said:
that wont fly here:
I do not think even other Catholics believe that God's written words are less authoritative than His spoken word:

You have an extremely corrupted view of writings breathed out by God that is not taught by the CC.
You have made yourself your own Magisterium
Click to expand...
Me? That's the first time anyone has ever accused me of that. In the bible are there not the major and minor prophets? Are the minor ones somehow being disrespected or have no validity by that appellation? No.

What I maintain is the same, no other person or biblical writer is or can ever be at the level of Jesus Christ, God Incarnate - they simply do not have equal stature.

Oh yes, they have their place in disseminating what God wanted out there, but the same? No. We as believers have to separate what is the cream from the milk. They both exist for the good, but one is certainly at the top.
 
Alonzo said:
Me? That's the first time anyone has ever accused me of that. In the bible are there not the major and minor prophets? Are the minor ones somehow being disrespected or have no validity by that appellation? No.

What I maintain is the same, no other person or biblical writer is or can ever be at the level of Jesus Christ, God Incarnate - they simply do not have equal stature.

Oh yes, they have their place in disseminating what God wanted out there, but the same? No. We as believers have to separate what is the cream from the milk. They both exist for the good, but one is certainly at the top.
Click to expand...
is that a joke?
the name Minor and Major prophets has to do with the length of the writing
Minor prophets means they are shorter in length and were all on one scroll.

Pure uniformed hubris.

Go back to Bible School:
 
Last edited:
Alonzo said:
Again, it comes down to who you believe - the Master or some biblical writer some 100 years into the future.
Click to expand...

Wrong again
the date of Hebrews:
The date of its production should certainly be placed before the destruction of Jerusalem (70), and previous to the outbreak of the Jewish War (67), but after the death of James, Bishop of Jerusalem (62). According to ch. xiii, 19, 23, the Apostle was no longer a prisoner. The most probable date for its composition is, therefore, the second half of the year 63 or the beginning of 64, as Paul after his release from imprisonment probably soon undertook the missionary journey "as far as the boundaries of Western Europe" (St. Clement of Rome, "I Epistle to the Corinthians", v, n. 7), that is to Spain.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Epistle to the Hebrews

The central thought of the entire Epistle is the doctrine of the Person of Christ and His Divine mediatorial office
www.newadvent.org www.newadvent.org
 
Last edited:
1Thess521 said:
the date of Hebrews:
The date of its production should certainly be placed before the destruction of Jerusalem (70), and previous to the outbreak of the Jewish War (67), but after the death of James, Bishop of Jerusalem (62). According to ch. xiii, 19, 23, the Apostle was no longer a prisoner. The most probable date for its composition is, therefore, the second half of the year 63 or the beginning of 64, as Paul after his release from imprisonment probably soon undertook the missionary journey "as far as the boundaries of Western Europe" (St. Clement of Rome, "I Epistle to the Corinthians", v, n. 7), that is to Spain.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Epistle to the Hebrews

The central thought of the entire Epistle is the doctrine of the Person of Christ and His Divine mediatorial office
www.newadvent.org www.newadvent.org
Click to expand...
Jesus was killed in year one, so it's only 60 or so years before Hebrews was written instead of 100. That's still a long time and still before it was written.
 
1Thess521 said:
The "He" in that Hebrew verse is Jesus.
It is the DEATH of Jesus that establishes the new covenant.

No one died at the Last Supper
Click to expand...
Where is it written that the blood of the covenant must be sacrificed the same day as the covenant is pronounced?

JoeT
 
1Thess521 said:
The "He" in that Hebrew verse is Jesus.
It is the DEATH of Jesus that establishes the new covenant.

No one died at the Last Supper
Click to expand...
If the New Covenant wasn't sealed by Christ's blood what kind of covenant do you suspect Christ made? Is it null and void because there was no blood? Was it symbolically sealed, and if so how do you break from the traditions established by God? Without a seal of blood, how do you know the covenant is valid? Where does your salvation come from if it isn't dependent on the covenant seal of blood?

Now remember your response cannot rely on Christ's sacrifice on the cross. Without that sacrifice there is no seal to the New Covenant and it shouldn't be relied on, Christ's words become subjective and not an objective truth.


JoeT
 
JoeT said:
Where is it written that the blood of the covenant must be sacrificed the same day as the covenant is pronounced?

JoeT
Click to expand...
When do you receive the benefits of a will or testament? Before or after the person dies?

Hebrews 9
16 For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. 17 For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive.

Hope this helps.
 
Nondenom40 said:
When do you receive the benefits of a will or testament? Before or after the person dies?

Hebrews 9
16 For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. 17 For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive.

Hope this helps.
Click to expand...
Is Jesus, who is in reality God, constrained by time as we humans are?
 
JoeT said:
If the New Covenant wasn't sealed by Christ's blood what kind of covenant do you suspect Christ made? Is it null and void because there was no blood? Was it symbolically sealed, and if so how do you break from the traditions established by God? Without a seal of blood, how do you know the covenant is valid? Where does your salvation come from if it isn't dependent on the covenant seal of blood?

Now remember your response cannot rely on Christ's sacrifice on the cross. Without that sacrifice there is no seal to the New Covenant and it shouldn't be relied on, Christ's words become subjective and not an objective truth.


JoeT
Click to expand...
That's right.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top