Disciples Doubts

[William_C]

I had a look at occurrences of the English word perpetual in the OT. A few other uses of the word:

Ex 29:9 And thou shalt gird them with girdles, Aaron and his sons, and put the bonnets on them: and the priest’s office shall be theirs for a perpetual statute: and thou shalt consecrate Aaron and his sons.

Lev 24:9 And it shall be Aaron’s and his sons’; and they shall eat it in the holy place: for it is most holy unto him of the offerings of the Lord made by fire by a perpetual statute.

Num 19:21 And it shall be a perpetual statute unto them, that he that sprinkleth the water of separation shall wash his clothes; and he that toucheth the water of separation shall be unclean until even.

1Kings 9:3 And the Lord said unto him, I have heard thy prayer and thy supplication, that thou hast made before me: I have hallowed this house, which thou hast built, to put my name there for ever; and mine eyes and mine heart shall be there perpetually.

2Ch 7:16 For now have I chosen and sanctified this house, that my name may be there for ever: and mine eyes and mine heart shall be there perpetually.

Perpetual? Not if God decides otherwise.

It seems that it’s the Catholic position that the real meaning of Scripture is somehow hidden behind the plain meaning of the words. IOW, the plain meaning of the words are not the real meaning of the scripture, but the real meaning is something else, is that correct?

 

[Faithdancer]

That’s not what your catechism says. Your catechism says the eucharist was instituted at the last supper (para 1365), and scripture says the new covenant was instituted at the Lord’s death (Heb 9:16ff).

Not instituted. Sealed! Or as Hebrews 9:16 puts it, ratified. Ratified is a completely different meaning than “instituted” or “initiated.” “Ratified” means “finalized” as does “sealed.”

 

[Faithdancer]

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church (and correctly cited!)
SECTION TWO: THE SEVEN SACRAMENTS OF THE CHURCH
CHAPTER ONE: THE SACRAMENTS OF CHRISTIAN INITIATION
ARTICLE 3: THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST
V. The Sacramental Sacrifice: Thanksgiving, Memorial, Presence
1365 Because it is the memorial of Christ’s Passover, the Eucharist is also a sacrifice. The sacrificial character of the Eucharist is manifested in the very words of institution: “This is my body which is given for you” and "This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood."187 In the Eucharist Christ gives us the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."188

At the Last Supper Jesus Christ did not say “This bread is symbolic of my body,” or “This bread will become my body.” He said, “This is my body.” He then said, “This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood.” He did not say “will be” the New Covenant or “symbolizes” the New Covenant. This is not open to interpretation. The New Covenant is initiated at the Last Supper. No interpretation of the Catechism, or the Gospel passages it references, is required. To argue otherwise, however, requires very creative interpretation…or misinterpretation.

The Catechism is silent on the issue of John 6 initiating the New Covenant in a parallel reading. However, the words carry the exact same meaning as the description of the Last Supper in the Synoptic Gospel. In John 6, Christ says His words are spirit and life. This means they are not mere human words. They are divine, and since God is simple, and Jesus is true God, their meaning can be taken simply- they are a promise of eternal life when one eats and drinks Jesus Christ. This is their literal interpretation, and in fact if taken at face value, they need no interpretation.

It’s amazing how someone can be sola scriptura when it suits their agenda, and then misinterpret freely when it doesn’t suit their agenda.

 

[Faithdancer]

Not instituted. Sealed! Or as Hebrews 9:16 puts it, ratified. Ratified is a completely different meaning than “instituted” or “initiated.” “Ratified” means “finalized” as does “sealed.”

I am referring here to the institution of the New Covenant. The Ratification or “sealing” of the New Covenant was the Crucifixion.

 

[William_C]

I am referring here to the institution of the New Covenant. The Ratification or “sealing” of the New Covenant was the Crucifixion.

As I’ve said.

 

[Faithdancer]

As I’ve said.

So now you agree that the institution Yes, no one was ever arguing that the ratification of the New Covenant was the Crucifixion. When it was instituted was the issue.

btw, some theologians call John the “Catholic” Gospel. I think John 6 must be a main reason for that.

 

[William_C]

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church (and correctly cited!)
SECTION TWO: THE SEVEN SACRAMENTS OF THE CHURCH
CHAPTER ONE: THE SACRAMENTS OF CHRISTIAN INITIATION
ARTICLE 3: THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST
V. The Sacramental Sacrifice: Thanksgiving, Memorial, Presence
1365 Because it is the memorial of Christ’s Passover, the Eucharist is also a sacrifice. The sacrificial character of the Eucharist is manifested in the very words of institution: “This is my body which is given for you” and "This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood."187 In the Eucharist Christ gives us the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."188

At the Last Supper Jesus Christ did not say “This bread is symbolic of my body,” or “This bread will become my body.” He said, “This is my body.” He then said, “This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood.” He did not say “will be” the New Covenant or “symbolizes” the New Covenant. This is not open to interpretation. The New Covenant is initiated at the Last Supper. No interpretation of the Catechism, or the Gospel passages it references, is required. To argue otherwise, however, requires very creative interpretation…or misinterpretation.

The Catechism is silent on the issue of John 6 initiating the New Covenant in a parallel reading. However, the words carry the exact same meaning as the description of the Last Supper in the Synoptic Gospel. In John 6, Christ says His words are spirit and life. This means they are not mere human words. They are divine, and since God is simple, and Jesus is true God, their meaning can be taken simply- they are a promise of eternal life when one eats and drinks Jesus Christ. This is their literal interpretation, and in fact if taken at face value, they need no interpretation.

It’s amazing how someone can be sola scriptura when it suits their agenda, and then misinterpret freely when it doesn’t suit their agenda.

One more time: the catechism says the eucharist is instituted not in John 6, but at the last supper, and Scripture says the new covenant is instituted at the death of the Lord.

 

[William_C]

So now you agree that the institution of the New Covenant was not the Crucifixion. Glad you came around!

Now I agree?

I’ve been correcting you on that all along. See my past pointing you to Heb 9.

In fact, here are your words from your post #47:

"The new Covenant began with the institution of the Eucharist, not with the Crucifixion."

Your words. Heb 9:16ff refutes you.

 

[William_C]

So now you agree that the institution Yes, no one was ever arguing that the ratification of the New Covenant was the Crucifixion. When it was instituted was the issue.

btw, some theologians call John the “Catholic” Gospel. I think John 6 must be a main reason for that.

I’m sorry, I misunderstood what you said. No, the new covenant is instituted with the death of Christ, as I’ve said all along (cf Heb 9:16ff).

 

[Faithdancer]

I’m sorry, I misunderstood what you said. No, the new covenant is instituted with the death of Christ, as I’ve said all along (cf Heb 9:16ff).

LOL I’ve read Hebrews 9:15-18 and re-read it, and I don’t see the word “instituted” but I do see the word “ratified.” “Instituted” is, (as sola scriptura types like to say) “not in my Bible!”

 

[William_C]

LOL I’ve read Hebrews 9:15-18 and re-read it, and I don’t see the word “instituted” but I do see the word “ratified.” “Instituted” is, (as sola scriptura types like to say) “not in my Bible!”

LOL, a testament is instituted, or goes into effect at the death of the testator, and not before, according to the writer of Hebrews (Heb 9:16ff).

 

[Faithdancer]

LOL, a testament is instituted, or goes into effect at the death of the testator, and not before, according to the writer of Hebrews (Heb 9:16ff).

That’s very creative! So, you’re clearly not sola scriptura, not at all!

 

[Faithdancer]

From the Free Online Dictionary:
Institute: To establish, organize, and set in operation. b. To initiate; begin.
Ratify: To approve and give formal sanction to; confirm.

“Institute” is synonymous with “initiate.” “Ratify” is synonymous with neither, and in the English language, has quite a different meaning. In chronological sequence, “ratify” clearly would follow “institute.”

 

[Mystophilus]

Then Jesus is instructing them to break the commandment of God.

That is what they hear: an instruction violating the Law as they understand it, and not just Lev 3:17, which you obsessively repeat. That is part of what they describe as “hard”, difficult to “hear” or “obey”, in v.60, and what Jesus describes as “offending” them in v.61. It is all right there in the text.

Those who left understood wrongly that Jesus meant they were to literally eat His flesh and blood.

Those who depart do so in v.66, after Jesus makes further comments, and the text does not say what they understood.

So you admit you have no idea why they left. OK. You don’t know.

As noted, what you claim about their understanding is not at all in the text. Likewise, what you claim about what I am saying is not at all in the text of my comments. Please read what is actually written.

I know why they left. It’s in v65.

The last sentence is a reasonable claim, but is also an entirely separate claim from the previous one regarding the understanding of those who left, and thus a colossal non sequitur.

 

[William_C]

That’s very creative! So, you’re clearly not sola scriptura, not at all!

Scripture is clear: the start of a covenant begins with the death of the testator (Heb 9:16ff).

Therefore, in John 6, the New Convenant is still future, and the Old Covenant is still in effect. So, Jesus cannot mean that His flesh and blood are to be literally consumed. Otherwise, He is leading the Jews into sin by breaking the commandment of God given to them in Lev 3:17, and James assures us that God does not lead men to sin (Jas 1:13-14).

 

[TimothyH]

LOL, a testament is instituted, or goes into effect at the death of the testator, and not before, according to the writer of Hebrews (Heb 9:16ff).

You guys have enterined into a very old argument, whether the passage says “Covenant” or “Testament”. The idea the word testament is used is not universal.

A Broken Covenant and the Curse of Death: A Study of Hebrews 9:15-22 by Dr. Scott Hahn.

The paper talks about what would have happened under Jewish law had someone been presumed to be dead, their “Last will and testament” had been executed, and then the person was found not to be dead but alive subsequent to the execution of the person’s legal Will. This is contrast with the Jewish understanding of “Covenant”, and through it tries to identify what the author of Hebrews was really trying to communicate.

The short story is that the covenant ends when a member of the covenant dies, and the legal Last Will and Testament likewise takes effect only after the death of the testator. But in the case of Jesus, he rose to life again, and that makes the situation much more complex under Jewish law, and changes what the author of Hebrews was trying to tell us. A legal Will does not involve priesthood, sanctuary, temple, sacrifice, transgressions of the Mosaic Law, etc. So there is a difference and understanding of the passage is not universal.

It’s not as easy as “Jesus didn’t die until the next day”. He died, but rose from the dead, and that changes everything.

The paper linked is quite good.

-Tim-

 

[R_C]

Where does God command the Jews not to associate with Gentiles?

I mean, God saved Ruth, and Rahab, and allowed many other non-Jews to be brought into the midst of Israel as slaves.

Peter told them, "You know it is against our laws for a Jewish man to enter a Gentile home like this or to associate with you. But God has shown me that I should no longer think of anyone as impure or unclean.

Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
It is an unlawful thing - This was not explicitly enjoined by Moses, but it seemed to be implied in his institutions, and was, at any rate, the common understanding of the Jews. The design was to keep them a separate people. To do this, Moses forbade alliances by contract, or marriage, with the surrounding nations, which were idolatrous. See Leviticus 18:24-30; Deuteronomy 7:3-12; compare Ezra 9:11-12. This command the Jews perverted, and explained it as referring to contact of all kinds, even to the exercise of friendly offices and commercial transactions.

Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
And he said unto them,… The whole company that were met together, who were chiefly, if not altogether Gentiles:

ye know that it is an unlawful thing; what is forbidden by the law of Moses, Deuteronomy 7:2 and by the traditions of the elders, which carry the matter further than the law did, and made it very criminal:

for a man that is a Jew, to keep company with, or come unto one of another nation; besides entering into covenants and marriages with them, which were forbidden by the law, though they allowed of trade and commerce with the Gentiles, yet not any familiar conversation with them; it was prohibited to eat and drink any sort of liquor with them in their houses (h), nor might they walk with them in the streets, or on the road; says Maimonides (i),

 

[TimothyH]

Scripture is clear: the start of a covenant begins with the death of the testator (Heb 9:16ff).

Therefore, in John 6, the New Convenant is still future, and the Old Covenant is still in effect. So, Jesus cannot mean that His flesh and blood are to be literally consumed. Otherwise, He is leading the Jews into sin by breaking the commandment of God given to them in Lev 3:17, and James assures us that God does not lead men to sin (Jas 1:13-14).

The testator rose from the dead. That complicates things under Jewish law.

-Tim-

 

[pete_29]

God made a Covenant with Abraham. Is God dead, or isn’t the Covenant in effect yet? I’m confused.

 

[William_C]

You guys have enterined into a very old argument, whether the passage says “Covenant” or “Testament”. The idea the word testament is used is not universal.

A Broken Covenant and the Curse of Death: A Study of Hebrews 9:15-22 by Dr. Scott Hahn.

The paper talks about what would have happened under Jewish law had someone been presumed to be dead, their “Last will and testament” had been executed, and then the person was found not to be dead but alive subsequent to the execution of the person’s legal Will. This is contrast with the Jewish understanding of “Covenant”, and through it tries to identify what the author of Hebrews was really trying to communicate.

The short story is that the covenant ends when a member of the covenant dies, and the legal Last Will and Testament likewise takes effect only after the death of the testator. But in the case of Jesus, he rose to life again, and that makes the situation much more complex under Jewish law, and changes what the author of Hebrews was trying to tell us. A legal Will does not involve priesthood, sanctuary, temple, sacrifice, transgressions of the Mosaic Law, etc. So there is a difference and understanding of the passage is not universal.

It’s not as easy as “Jesus didn’t die until the next day”. He died, but rose from the dead, and that changes everything.

The paper linked is quite good.

-Tim-

Timothy, appealing to others is quite useless. That type of appeal is generally considered a logical fallacy. Anyone can round up writers to support any position.

What’s important is the statement of Scripture regarding this. It is simple, and it is clear: Until the testator dies, the testament **HAS NO POWER **(Heb 9:16ff). It is not in effect while the testator lives.

I believe that.

If you don’t want to believe that, it’s your choice.