Authority/Responsibility

Jesus said, "Drink from it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."
That is not real blood remember, it is a prohesy telling them to remember the cross. Therefore that verse does not support the last supper was the NC.
 
Jesus said, "Drink from it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."
sorry: It does NOT say that is when the NC went into effect:
(that is your personal interpretation not taught by your Church)

but this does:
Hebrews 9:15-17​
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."

and so does this:
From The Vatican website (the numbers 13 and 14 are links)
quoting​
13 [15-22] Jesus' role as mediator of the new covenant is based upon his sacrificial death (cf Hebrews 8:6). His death has effected deliverance from transgressions, i.e., deliverance from sins committed under the old covenant, which the Mosaic sacrifices were incapable of effacing. Until this happened, the eternal inheritance promised by God could not be obtained ( Hebrews 9:15). This effect of his work follows the human pattern by which a last will and testament becomes effective only with the death of the testator ( Hebrews 9:16-17). The Mosaic covenant was also associated with death, for Moses made use of blood to seal the pact between God and the people ( Hebrews 9:18-21). In Old Testament tradition, guilt could normally not be remitted without the use of blood ( Hebrews 9:22; cf Lev 17:11).​
"14 [16-17] A will . . . death of the testator: the same Greek word diatheke, meaning "covenant" in Hebrews 9:15, 18, is used here with the meaning will.​
The new covenant, unlike the old, is at the same time a will that requires the death of the testator. Jesus as eternal Son is the one who established the new covenant together with his Father, author of both covenants;
at the same time he is the testator whose death puts his will into effect."

Let's see if you can be corrected
 
Last edited:
sorry: It does NOT say that is when the NC went into effect:
(that is your personal interpretation not taught by your Church)

but this does:
Hebrews 9:15-17​
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."

and so does this:
From The Vatican website (the numbers 13 and 14 are links)
quoting​
13 [15-22] Jesus' role as mediator of the new covenant is based upon his sacrificial death (cf Hebrews 8:6). His death has effected deliverance from transgressions, i.e., deliverance from sins committed under the old covenant, which the Mosaic sacrifices were incapable of effacing. Until this happened, the eternal inheritance promised by God could not be obtained ( Hebrews 9:15). This effect of his work follows the human pattern by which a last will and testament becomes effective only with the death of the testator ( Hebrews 9:16-17). The Mosaic covenant was also associated with death, for Moses made use of blood to seal the pact between God and the people ( Hebrews 9:18-21). In Old Testament tradition, guilt could normally not be remitted without the use of blood ( Hebrews 9:22; cf Lev 17:11).​
"14 [16-17] A will . . . death of the testator: the same Greek word diatheke, meaning "covenant" in Hebrews 9:15, 18, is used here with the meaning will.​
The new covenant, unlike the old, is at the same time a will that requires the death of the testator. Jesus as eternal Son is the one who established the new covenant together with his Father, author of both covenants;
at the same time he is the testator whose death puts his will into effect."

Let's see if you can be corrected
To be honest I don't really care about when the nc went into effect as much as I care about the bread and wine being the body and blood of Christ.

I can argue that the nc didn't go into effect until Jesus ascended into heaven and enter into the heavenly Holy of Holies as it says in Hebrews:

Hebrews 9:12, "he entered once for all into the Holy Place, not with the blood of goats and calves, but with his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption."

Jesus death on the cross didn't complete everything that was necessary for our eternal redemption, he had to enter the Holy of Holies with his own blood.

Also that CC also teaches that, "600 To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy...." And arguments can be made based on this as to when the nc went into effect.

When the nc went into effect doesn't effect the fact that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ. Jesus said, "Drink from it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

There is no way that, "blood of the covenant" can be symbolic. And the CC teaches that it is not.

Now, can you be corrected?
 
Rev.2:20
20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee,
because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess,
to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication,
and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.

Now, can you be corrected?
From someone that "Returned Home too Rome"
and exalts The Rock of Sodomites

corrected ????
Not a chance
 
To be honest I don't really care about when the nc went into effect as much as I care about the bread and wine being the body and blood of Christ.

I can argue that the nc didn't go into effect until Jesus ascended into heaven and enter into the heavenly Holy of Holies as it says in Hebrews:

Hebrews 9:12, "he entered once for all into the Holy Place, not with the blood of goats and calves, but with his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption."

Jesus death on the cross didn't complete everything that was necessary for our eternal redemption, he had to enter the Holy of Holies with his own blood.

Also that CC also teaches that, "600 To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy...." And arguments can be made based on this as to when the nc went into effect.

When the nc went into effect doesn't effect the fact that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ. Jesus said, "Drink from it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

There is no way that, "blood of the covenant" can be symbolic. And the CC teaches that it is not.

Now, can you be corrected?
Yep that reveals that you do not care about the true gospel message or the importance of the NC. Your institution teaches a lot of hogwash that has nothing to do with salvation. There is every way the blood at the last supper was symbolic but the blood on the cross was literal. There is a major difference and it is a very important difference which you fail to understand. You show lack of knowledge of sacrifices and covenants.

The ones that aren't correct are the RCs and their false understanding of communion
 
Yep that reveals that you do not care about the true gospel message or the importance of the NC. Your institution teaches a lot of hogwash that has nothing to do with salvation. There is every way the blood at the last supper was symbolic but the blood on the cross was literal. There is a major difference and it is a very important difference which you fail to understand. You show lack of knowledge of sacrifices and covenants.

The ones that aren't correct are the RCs and their false understanding of communion
You appear to be settling the issue and declaring that the bread and wine are symbolic based on your own personal interpretation and not on the actual words of scripture. Jesus words at the Last Supper are very clear, "...this is my blood of the covenant..."

Sorry but there is no way that the blood of the covenant can be symbolic.
 
It was the Passover Meal
Christ was Teaching the true Passover to come;,


ding do you have any idea what the "Passover" was

---------------Posters------------------

Rev.3:7
to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write
..
I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation,
which shall come upon all the world,
to try them that dwell upon the earth.

Romans 3:1​
What advantage then hath the Jew?​
or what profit is there of circumcision?​
2 Much every way:​
chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.​

now back to Revelation

Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan,
which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie;
behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet,
and to know that I have loved thee.
 
Last edited:
You appear to be settling the issue and declaring that the bread and wine are symbolic based on your own personal interpretation and not on the actual words of scripture. Jesus words at the Last Supper are very clear, "...this is my blood of the covenant..."

Sorry but there is no way that the blood of the covenant can be symbolic.

Jesus did clarify that the statement was symbolic. Rc's deliberately ignore this fact. They seek emotional and physical experience over truth.

John 6:63
The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life.


The rcc mass can be summed up and described as an overly physical and emotional experience that is quickly over the moment mass is over; leaving the laity with a very shallow and empty form of worship. Not only that, but it also disobeys Scripture

John 4:24
God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth
 
You appear to be settling the issue and declaring that the bread and wine are symbolic based on your own personal interpretation and not on the actual words of scripture. Jesus words at the Last Supper are very clear, "...this is my blood of the covenant..."

Sorry but there is no way that the blood of the covenant can be symbolic.
I don't declare anything, it is in scripture. I give heaps of points as to why it is not literal and you have given us Jesus says. Well Jesus says Peter is Satan, so really you have nothing.

The real blood is real the wine is real wine.
 
Jesus did clarify that the statement was symbolic. Rc's deliberately ignore this fact. They seek emotional and physical experience over truth.

John 6:63
The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life.


The rcc mass can be summed up and described as an overly physical and emotional experience that is quickly over the moment mass is over; leaving the laity with a very shallow and empty form of worship. Not only that, but it also disobeys Scripture

John 4:24
God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth
excellent point but I am sure it went over their heads.
 
You appear to be settling the issue and declaring that the bread and wine are symbolic based on your own personal interpretation and not on the actual words of scripture. Jesus words at the Last Supper are very clear, "...this is my blood of the covenant..."

Sorry but there is no way that the blood of the covenant can be symbolic.
all that catholics have is a version of the rcc's own personal interpretation, not His truth.
 
As Catholics we believe that Jesus gave authority to the Pope/Magisterium. For this reason we listen to what the church teaches concerning the Christian faith. The primary teachings of the Catholic church can be found in Scripture and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC). These two sources can be trusted for knowing what we are to believe as Christians. The authority rests upon the shoulders of Jesus and so we should trust the ones that Jesus gave authority to:

Isaiah 9:6-7:
For a child has been born for us,
a son given to us;
authority rests upon his shoulders;
and he is named
Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
His authority shall grow continually,
and there shall be endless peace
for the throne of David and his kingdom.
He will establish and uphold it
with justice and with righteousness
from this time onwards and for evermore.
The zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this.

This has zero to do with Jesus supposedly giving authority to your specific church.
Jesus is responsible and he has entrusted this responsibility to the Catholic church. Therefore we can trust the scriptures and the CCC.

So given this why would anyone listen to any other sources that contradict scripture and/or the CCC?

Why should we listen and believe the CCC, when it often "teaches for doctrine the precepts of men"? Whom is it better to believe? God--or your Magisterium and popes?
Will these other sources be held responsible?
Jesus gave responsibility to THE church, not the Roman Catholic church, which has been "teaching for doctrine the precepts of men" for centuries and is no longer a true church, since it has a different gospel, which is NO gospel at all. So, why should anyone listen to the CC, since it often contradicts Scripture, or adds to God's holy word? Should we not believe the Bible over man-made teachings?

We are to be good Bereans and have discernment and search the scriptures, to see if a teaching is true. If it isn't, then we don't believe it and those that promulgate a false doctrine are wolves in sheep's clothing, regardless of how sincere they might be. They are sincerely wrong.
 
Back
Top