Disciples Doubts

[William_C]

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

God “cut a covenant” with Abraham, and it was sealed with the blood of animals.

The covenant God cut with Abraham is unilateral. God put Abraham to sleep as He enacted the covenant.

Th

 

[William_C]

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

God “cut a covenant” with Abraham, and it was sealed with the blood of animals.

The covenant God cut with Abraham is unilateral. God put Abraham to sleep as He enacted the covenant.

The same goes for you, Peter, if you don’t want to believe what the writer says in Heb 9:16ff, that’s your choice.

I believe it.

 

[William_C]

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

-Tim-

Tim, there is no complication from the resurrection mentioned by the writer of Hebrews.

Any complication being introduced into this is being introduced by a writer other than one who wrote inspired Scripture.

 

[William_C]

R_C:
Thanks, R_C.

 

[pete_29]

God “cut a covenant” with Abraham, and it was sealed with the blood of animals.

The covenant God cut with Abraham is unilateral. God put Abraham to sleep as He enacted the covenant.

The same goes for you, Peter, if you don’t want to believe what the writer says in Heb 9:16ff, that’s your choice.

I believe it.

Actually, Pete is my nickname. I believe what I learn from the Catholic Church because without some Interpretive authority everyone ends up with their own interpretations of Scripture and everyone can’t be right at the same time.

God bless you on your journey through life.

 

[Faithdancer]

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.

Dr. Scott Hahn received his M.Div. (summa cum laude) from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, and his Ph.D. in systematic theology from Marquette University (Phi Beta Kappa). These are both Protestant.theology programs, by the way. Dr. Hahn also wrote his dissertation on covenantal theology.

William, to cite authoritative references from peer-reviewed journals is called “scholarship,” and not “logical fallacy.”

 

[William_C]

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.

Your position then, is that Jesus is enticing them to sin.

Mystophilus:

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 have read it. They understood Jesus to be saying that His flesh and blood were to literally eaten, but that’s not what He meant. That would be sin for them, and Jesus wouldn’t entice them to sin.

Mystophilus:

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.

So v61 is both reasonable, and a colossal non sequitur. V61 gives the reason why those who left, left.

 

[William_C]

Actually, William, to cite authoritative references from peer-reviewed journals is called “scholarship”.

And I can cite authoritative references contrary to Hahn. Again, hurling sources proves nothing.

The new covenant was not in effect until the Lord died (Heb 9:16ff; cf v15). There is your authoritative source.

 

[William_C]

Actually, Pete is my nickname. I believe what I learn from the Catholic Church because without some Interpretive authority everyone ends up with their own interpretations of Scripture and everyone can’t be right at the same time.

God bless you on your journey through life.

Well, Pete, you had to do some interpreting on your own to arrive at the conclusion that the RCC is the authority. Those decisions aren’t arrived at in a vacuum.

 

[TimothyH]

And I can cite authoritative references contrary to Hahn. Again, hurling sources proves nothing.

The new covenant was not in effect until the Lord died (Heb 9:16ff; cf v15). There is your authoritative source.

What happens when a Last Will and Testament is executed but then the deceased is found to be alive?

Christ lives. He is alive.

-Tim-

 

[William_C]

What happens when a Last Will and Testament is executed but then the deceased is found to be alive?

Christ lives. He is alive.

-Tim-

The will and testament would be null and void; therefore, the Old Testament is still in effect.

I see your point. We are still under the Old Testament, and not the New.

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[fisherman_carl]

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.

The Eucharist is instituted at the last supper. Jesus said, ‘Do this in remembrance of me.’ What is ‘this’ that Jesus is talking about that we are to do in remembrance of him? ‘this’ is the Eucharist where Jesus takes bread and says, ‘this is my body’. And he takes wine and says, ‘this is my blood.’

In John 6 Jesus is making a covenant with those who would believe in him. He commands those who believe in him to eat his body and drink his blood in order to have eternal life. That is a command with a promise that Jesus will give us his body and blood to eat and also give us eternal life if we eat it. It is a covenant between him and those who obey his command.

This covenant was first manifested at the last supper when Jesus provided his body and blood for the disciples and continues to be made manifest at each Eucharist by his commandment to his disciples to do this in remembrance of me. Jesus said, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.’ (1 Cor 11:25). Right there in scripture it says ‘this cup is the new covenant.’

The sacrifice on the cross is Christ making good on his promise. As he said, in Jn 6:53, ‘the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ Jesus is a priest in the order of Melchizedek because he offered a sacrifice of ‘bread’ just like Melchizedek. But Jesus’ bread is no ordinary bread but it is his own flesh offered as a sacrifice on the cross made manifest to us through the Eucharist.

Without the Last Supper no one would know that Jesus’ crucifixion was a sacrifice. What Jesus instituted at the Last Supper was a covenant that was ratified on that cross. As you said the will and testament is put in effect when the person dies. But, the will and testament is written and agreed to before the person dies. John 6 and the Last Supper gives us that will and testament of Jesus. Thus, it is entirely feasible to say that the new covenant was instituted at the Last Supper and put into effect through Christ’s death and Resurrection.

 

[kkollwitz]

The temple is destroyed; the Aaronic priesthood is defunct; the ritual washings no longer occur. None of them tuned out be perpetual.

 

[Faithdancer]

Leaving aside for a moment the issue of the exact chronology of the New Covenant- the resolution of which seems to be at an impasse on this thread- it is clear, at least, from this discussion that the Eucharist as the real presence of Jesus Christ is not in question. The real presence is required for true Communion as it involves not symbolism, not consubstantiation, but transubtantiation. Christ’s words in John 6, if taken literally, can leave no doubt about this, as in John 6: 35 Jesus says “I am the bread” and not “the bread represents my body” (symbolism) or “the bread is not really me, but my spirit is with/in/under the bread, which remains bread” (consubstantiation). To interpret Jesus’ declarative statement as meaning symbolism or consubstantiation is contrary to a sola scriptura reading of the verse. In fact this is true of the entire passage in question in John 6.

We can thank our separated brother here for helping in part, through an insistence on literal reading of Scripture, to underscore this critical doctrine.:tiphat:

 

[pete_29]

Well, Pete, you had to do some interpreting on your own to arrive at the conclusion that the RCC is the authority. Those decisions aren’t arrived at in a vacuum.

No, not really. What other authority could it be but the Church Jesus founded, but thats a topic for another thread.

 

[William_C]

Leaving aside for a moment the issue of the exact chronology of the New Covenant- the resolution of which seems to be at an impasse on this thread- it is clear from discussion that the that the Eucharist as the real presence of Jesus Christ is not in question. The real presence is required for true Communion as it involves not symbolism, not consubstantiation, but transubtantiation. Christ’s words in John 6, if taken literally, can leave no doubt about this, as in John 6: 35 Jesus says “I am the bread” and not “the bread represents my body” (symbolism) or “the bread is not really me, but my spirit is with/in/under the bread, which remains bread” (consubstantiation). To interpret Jesus’ declarative statement as meaning symbolism or consubstantiation is contrary to a sola scriptura reading of the verse. In fact this is true of the entire passage in question in John 6.

We can thank our separated brother here for helping in part, through an insistence on literal reading of Scripture, to underscore this critical doctrine.:tiphat:

Then it is your opinion that Jesus enticed His disciples to sin. Way to go.

 

[William_C]

No, not really. What other authority could it be but the Church Jesus founded, but thats a topic for another thread.

How did you arrive at that opinion, Pete?

By having never heard of the Catholic Church, nor reading anything about, or from it?

 

[William_C]

The temple is destroyed; the Aaronic priesthood is defunct; the ritual washings no longer occur. None of them tuned out be perpetual.

When do you believe time ended? Please include the month, day and year.

Is that the same time Israel ceased to be a people?

 

[pete_29]

How did you arrive at that opinion, Pete?

By having never heard of the Catholic Church, nor reading anything about, or from it?

It was a gift from God.

 

[pete_29]

William, please explain This IS my Body and This is My Blood, and why you don’t take Jesus at His Word.