So God is not sound, really. RCs are constantly belittling the words of God making out they are only the words of men.
The Eucharist is the New Testament
- Thread starter dingoling.
- Start date
- Status
Oh where you just make out it is only the words of men.
Beloved Daughter
Super Member
Read the rules https://carm.org/uncategorized/carm-discussion-rules/
You agreed to follow them. Pay close attention to rules 12 and 22.
Actually you need to go back and re-read what I said. You made the initial charge that it is we Catholics who "put the words of men over God". I replied that: "You too listen to men, the men who came up with what you believe long ago". That you "derive your theological outlook from men who have instructed you" - like your church denomination and your Pastor. There is no insult there,
No I don't need to, I was right.
Nope, I do not see where I violated the rules. But of course if you have reported me as doing such a thing, I am at the mercy of the administrators.
I was not talking to you here. Beloved Daughter was my counterpart.
Looks like somehow I got crossed up with you. My apologies so please disregard.
JoeT
Well-known member
There is a link.
It verifies itself with the same scripture found in the Septuagint used in the Vulgate.
A Divine Covenant doesn't require anything of men. What can men offer God except the rectitude of the will?
JoeT
Beloved Daughter
Super Member
I rarely report anyone. But I am a stickler for the rules. You should be as well.
No! It represents the blood of Jesus without which, no one can gain salvation. But it is only 1 part.
there's a reason we read and study the writings by men chosen by Christ to do that. and a reason we check what an earthly minister / teacher tells us scripture says and why we take our bibles to church and bible studies.
Where did I say it required anything of men but it requires two parties God and ????????Otherwise there would be no need for any of the covenants.
dingoling.
Well-known member
But you are wrong because scripture does say that the cup that is poured out for us is the new covenant in his blood. It doesn't say that it represents his blood.
RayneBeau
Well-known member
Jesus referred to the new covenant in his blood (22:20) He was bringing new significance to an element of this meal and he does so using the terminology of covenant. He talks about a new covenant. He talks about a new covenant that he is inaugurating, a new covenant that he will ratify with the pouring out of his own blood. This is the moment of transition from the OT people of God to the NT Church; there, around that table, the true Church of Jesus Christ was born.
1Thess521
Well-known member
no one made that claim that it had to be on the same day.
The Scriptural claim is that it did not happen before the death of Christ.
The claim is that it is the DEATH of Jesus that establishes the new covenant
The Scriptures DO explicitly state (using absolute terms; "must be" and "only") that it is the DEATH of Jesus that establishes the new covenant.
" 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,"
No one died at the Last Supper
1Thess521
Well-known member
The Scriptures DO explicitly state (using absolute terms; "must be" and "only") that it is the DEATH of Jesus that establishes the new covenant.
" 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
Well-known member
the OP and @dingoling. and @Alonzo and @pilgrim are NOT discussing when it was "written"
They are claiming it went into effect at the Last Supper:
When did the New Covenant go into effect?
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."
They are denying Christ's death is required for the New Covenant go into effect.
Please correct them
JoeT
Well-known member
To imply as you do below, "it did not happen" is to say that to establish the covenant the blood must be offered up that very minute. Christ said of the Cup, "this IS my Blood". Since the same God breathed the cosmos into existance out of nothing I can't see the difficulty of the wine becoming His Blood as He commanded.
The covenant was established the evening of the Last Supper as the Eucharist. I think we can trust Christ for a few hours before actually sealing the covenant.
At the Last Supper, in absolute terms, Christ said, , the chalice of wine is the New Covenant. [Cf. Matthew 26:28; Luke 22:20]. His Blood is the Covenant.
And, before the testator's death is He not allowed to grace those who would be intended recipients of his legacy? And as I've said before, wills are often made decades before the demise of the testator. Of course there are no legal rights to the legacy until death, and in Christ's case, on that day the entire universe was remade.
JoeT
dingoling.
Well-known member
How does this make the wine just a symbol?
None of the above nonsense negates that there is no testament in effect UNTIL the death of the testator. The NC could not and was not in effect until the cross. There was no bloodshed nor a death at the Last Supper.
- Status