Dispensationalist inconsistincies with and

[Anna_Scott]

Back to the issue of land:

Also from the Vatican website, I found an expressed concern by the Jewish people over the failure [of Catholics] to note the essential significance of peoplehood and land in Jewish faith.

RELATIONS WITH THE JEWS

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19750110_setting-commission_en.html

. . . .The Jewish side raised questions about several aspects of the Guidelines, including their failure to note the essential significance of peoplehood and land in Jewish faith. Questions were also raised with regard to the affirmation in the Guidelines of the obligation of Catholics to witness to their faith within the context of dialogue, and the suggestion for common prayer.

The Catholic delegation made it clear that neither the document taken as a whole nor any part of it should be understood as an attempt at proselytizing Jews.. . . .

. . .Whatever their origins, the main criticisms levelled against the Guidelines and Suggestions can be thus summed up:

a) The text is silent on the spiritual bond existing between the Jewish faith, the people and the land o Israel. . .

f) The existence of the State of Israel is not mentioned, not even as a reality deeply affecting contemporary Judaism.

Have Catholics ceased all efforts to proselytize the Jews? Just wondering.

Anna

 

[CopticChristian]

Back to the issue of land:

Also from the Vatican website, I found an expressed concern by the Jewish people over the failure [of Catholics] to note the essential significance of peoplehood and land in Jewish faith.

RELATIONS WITH THE JEWS

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19750110_setting-commission_en.html

. . . .The Jewish side raised questions about several aspects of the Guidelines, including their failure to note the essential significance of peoplehood and land in Jewish faith. Questions were also raised with regard to the affirmation in the Guidelines of the obligation of Catholics to witness to their faith within the context of dialogue, and the suggestion for common prayer.

The Catholic delegation made it clear that neither the document taken as a whole nor any part of it should be understood as an attempt at proselytizing Jews.. . . .

. . .Whatever their origins, the main criticisms levelled against the Guidelines and Suggestions can be thus summed up:

a) The text is silent on the spiritual bond existing between the Jewish faith, the people and the land o Israel. . .

f) The existence of the State of Israel is not mentioned, not even as a reality deeply affecting contemporary Judaism.

Have Catholics ceased all efforts to proselytize the Jews? Just wondering.

Anna

Anna,

This a-f is preceeded by this. It is just noting that there are criticisms.

B) It is only fair to add that the reservations expressed by some have been transformed into bitter criticism in certain more intransigent, more traditional or more activist Jewish circles. To the extent that they come from groups in Israel deeply engaged in national politics or, on the contrary, from fairly prominent personalities of the Diaspora, these criticisms must always be interpreted either in reference to problems of Israeli internal politics or in the framework of the constant tensions and rivalries that may exist between the different Jewish organizations.

Whatever their origins, the main criticisms levelled against the Guidelines and Suggestions can be thus summed up:

I believe that what the document is saying is that these are criticisms and I doubt that they will be addressed in spite of criticisms. Israel is people. There is no need for me to see any further clarification and I understand that others find this lacking however that is not a concern for me or as I see it for the magesterium.

I am not aware that I was ever to evangelize Jews. No memos got to me on that one.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Anna,

This a-f is preceeded by this. It is just noting that there are criticisms.

I believe that what the document is saying is that these are criticisms and I doubt that they will be addressed in spite of criticisms. Israel is people. There is no need for me to see any further clarification and I understand that others find this lacking however that is not a concern for me or as I see it for the magesterium.

I am not aware that I was ever to evangelize Jews. No memos got to me on that one.

I understand that these included criticisms.

Anna

 

[CopticChristian]

I understand that these included criticisms.

Anna

Pen,

Sounds like we have an understanding.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Anna,

I don’t where you obtained this information however it appears that someone wants to propogate this statement and attribute it to John Paul II. If clarity was wanted then the source would be provided. I suggest that the source from which you obtained this information be examined. Provide the source for clarity.

thanx Pen

This wasn’t falsely attributed to Pope John Paul II. He did say the Old Covenant has never been revoked.

In section V. we find the quote of Pope John Paul II: "Jews as “the people of God of the Old Covenant, which has never been revoked.”

**JERUSALEM, 19-23 NOVEMBER, 2001

PRESENTATION BY CARD. WALTER KASPER**

The Jewish-Christian Dialogue:
Foundations, Progress, Difficulties and Perspectives
V.

We Remember cannot be the last word. Pope John Paul II himself has been at the forefront of the ongoing dialogue with Jews and Judaism. He has been an example of the Catholic Church’s developing relationship of reconciliation with the Jewish community. This has grown gradually since his visit to Mainz, Germany, on November 17, 1980, when he referred to Jews as “the people of God of the Old Covenant, which has never been revoked”, but truly blossomed with his historic visit to the Synagogue of Rome on April 13, 1986. It was the first visit ever of a pope to a Synagogue.*

During that visit to the Synagogue John Paul II stated:

“The Jewish religion is not ‘extrinsic’ to us, but in a certain way is ‘intrinsic’ to our own religion. With Judaism, therefore, we have a relationship that we do not have with any other religion. You are our dearly beloved brothers and, in a certain way, it could be said that you are our elder brothers.” . . . . Link: vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/card-kasper-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20011123_kasper-jews-christians_en.html

Anna

In the same document the following was also stated,

"It refers to “the permanent reality of the Jewish people … the people of God of the Old Covenant, which has never been revoked … as a living reality closely related to the Church.”

"Now we are aware of God’s unrevoked covenant with his people and of the permanent and actual salvific significance of Jewish religion for its believers. . . ".

This has a dual Covenant tone, which I find very surprising.

Anna

 

[CopticChristian]

This wasn’t falsely attributed to Pope John Paul II. He did say the Old Covenant has never been revoked.

In the same document the following was also stated,

"It refers to “the permanent reality of the Jewish people … the people of God of the Old Covenant, which has never been revoked … as a living reality closely related to the Church.”

"Now we are aware of God’s unrevoked covenant with his people and of the permanent and actual salvific significance of Jewish religion for its believers. . . ".

Pen,

I am having a difficult time. May I ask you to p(name removed by moderator)oint where you got this information in that document. It takes time to read through and find what you have abstracted…the article

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/card-kasper-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20011123_kasper-jews-christians_en.html

I believe you are referring to is the above. It is broken down into Roman Numerals. Specifiy which Roman Numeral you found this information and if I have the correct document.

Thank you
This has a dual Covenant tone, which I find very surprising.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Pen,

I am having a difficult time. May I ask you to p(name removed by moderator)oint where you got this information in that document. It takes time to read through and find what you have abstracted…the article

vatican.va/roman_curia/po…stians_en.html

I believe you are referring to is the above. It is broken down into Roman Numerals. Specifiy which Roman Numeral you found this information and if I have the correct document.

Thank you

Coptic,

See Roman Numeral II. last 2 paragraphs; and Roman Numeral V. first paragraph.

Vatican Link: vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/card-kasper-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20011123_kasper-jews-christians_en.html

**JERUSALEM, 19-23 NOVEMBER, 2001

PRESENTATION BY CARD. WALTER KASPER
**
The Jewish-Christian Dialogue:
Foundations, Progress, Difficulties and Perspectives

Roman Numeral II. Last 2 paragraphs.

"Eleven years later, in 1985, the Commission published the Notes on the Correct Way to Present Judaism in Preaching and Catechesis in the Catholic Church. Here there is a concern that Judaism is not presented in Catholic teaching as being merely an historical and superseded reality. It refers to 'the permanent reality of the Jewish people … the people of God of the Old Covenant, which has never been revoked … as a living reality closely related to the Church.’

The claim for dialogue was very fruitful. The dialogue has developed over the last decades on many levels, national and international, popular and academic, educational and political. Whilst the Church Fathers wrote Tractatus contra Judaeos, several modern theologians write Tractatus de Judaeos in the sense of Tractatus pro Judaeos. Throughout nearly two millennia Christians have tended to characterise Judaism as a failed religion or, at best, a religion that prepared the way for, and is completed in, Christianity. Now we are aware of God’s unrevoked covenant with his people and of the permanent and actual salvific significance of Jewish religion for its believers."

Pope John Paul II is quoted in Roman Numeral V. 1st paragraph:

“We Remember cannot be the last word. Pope John Paul II himself has been at the forefront of the ongoing dialogue with Jews and Judaism. He has been an example of the Catholic Church’s developing relationship of reconciliation with the Jewish community. This has grown gradually since his visit to Mainz, Germany, on November 17, 1980, when he referred to Jews as “the people of God of the Old Covenant, which has never been revoked”, but truly blossomed with his historic visit to the Synagogue of Rome on April 13, 1986. It was the first visit ever of a pope to a Synagogue.”

pen :coffeeread:

 

[AbideWithMe]

The claim for dialogue was very fruitful. The dialogue has developed over the last decades on many levels, national and international, popular and academic, educational and political. Whilst the Church Fathers wrote Tractatus contra Judaeos, several modern theologians write Tractatus de Judaeos in the sense of Tractatus pro Judaeos. Throughout nearly two millennia Christians have tended to characterise Judaism as a failed religion or, at best, a religion that prepared the way for, and is completed in, Christianity. Now we are aware of God’s unrevoked covenant with his people and of the permanent and actual salvific significance of Jewish religion for its believers."

Coptic—

First, I’m sorry about the “memo” line which seemed sarcastic to you. I didn’t intend it as sarcasm. I had read this document a few years ago and it was on my mind as the aforementioned “memo” but I didn’t remember its name. I’m really busy these days and I posted carelessly, without considered the connotations of the phrase “didn’t get the memo”. So, I apologize for that.

You said that I said that Catholicism teaches supersessionism. No, I did not say that. You can read my post #14 again for clarification.

I’m not posting much, if at all, for awhile because of time constraints. I’m guessing, since you wrote about the Evangelical Free Church, and you’ve brought up dispensationalism with me a number of times, that you started this thread partly for me. As I’ve told you previously, I’m neither a dispensationalist nor a supersessionist. I do understand both positions and I know what I’m saying. Because of my interest in Judaism, Jewish /Christian relations, and the Jewish understanding of the Bible they wrote, I’ve spent a good deal of time on these issues already in my reading. I don’t expect to change your views.

 

[CopticChristian]

Coptic,

See Roman Numeral II. last 2 paragraphs; and Roman Numeral V. first paragraph.

Vatican Link: vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/card-kasper-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20011123_kasper-jews-christians_en.html

**JERUSALEM, 19-23 NOVEMBER, 2001

PRESENTATION BY CARD. WALTER KASPER
**
The Jewish-Christian Dialogue:
Foundations, Progress, Difficulties and Perspectives

Roman Numeral II. Last 2 paragraphs.

"Eleven years later, in 1985, the Commission published the Notes on the Correct Way to Present Judaism in Preaching and Catechesis in the Catholic Church. Here there is a concern that **Judaism is not presented in Catholic teaching as being merely an historical and **superseded ****reality. It refers to ‘the permanent reality of the Jewish people … the people of God of the Old Covenant, which has never been revoked … as a living reality closely related to the Church.’

The claim for dialogue was very fruitful. The dialogue has developed over the last decades on many levels, national and international, popular and academic, educational and political. Whilst the Church Fathers wrote Tractatus contra Judaeos, several modern theologians write Tractatus de Judaeos in the sense of Tractatus pro Judaeos. Throughout nearly two millennia Christians have tended to characterise Judaism as a failed religion or, at best, a religion that prepared the way for, and is completed in, Christianity. Now we are aware of God’s unrevoked covenant with his people and of the permanent and actual salvific significance of Jewish religion for its believers."

Pope John Paul II is quoted in Roman Numeral V. 1st paragraph:

“We Remember cannot be the last word. Pope John Paul II himself has been at the forefront of the ongoing dialogue with Jews and Judaism. He has been an example of the Catholic Church’s developing relationship of reconciliation with the Jewish community. This has grown gradually since his visit to Mainz, Germany, on November 17, 1980, when he referred to Jews as “the people of God of the Old Covenant, which has never been revoked”, but truly blossomed with his historic visit to the Synagogue of Rome on April 13, 1986. It was the first visit ever of a pope to a Synagogue.”

pen :coffeeread:

Pen,

I think I understand this. I marvel at the wrtings of the Church and how words are used. Notice that no Church document ever uses the word supersession or supersessionism. Note here that the word is used as an adjective and not a noun or adverb.

Next consider this. All Jews are Israealites but not all Israelites are Jews. The word Jew never appears in the bible until around 400 BC. Often times you will read “men of Judah”. Salvation was from the tribe of Judah, men of Judah, the Jews.

The Church does not contradict Scripure. Recall how Paul says that those outside the Covenant without circumcision were a law unto themselves. In other words the Gentiles without the law were circumcised of the heart and were in the Covenant without the law.

1Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God.

1Or do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives? 2For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. 3So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man.

  4Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God.

1I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew.

If this is true then those outside the New Covenant, that are Baptized of the heart and do what the New Covenant demands are in the New Covenant without actually joining it. So far so good?

Next note how Paul uses Jew and then Israelite. Note that Paul says that the Old Covenant is dead, like a spouse.

So the Jews of today have no Levetical priesthood, no temple, and the Old Covenant is not revoked…it is dead…however those that follow what they can of the Old Covenant are remnants in the Old Covenant that do what the New Covenant demands, then in some way we recognize that the synagogue has salvific significance for the Jew of today and that is not to equate with the Jew of the Bible, with a priesthood and a temple.

Has God abandoned his people? May it never be so.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Pen,

I think I understand this. I marvel at the wrtings of the Church and how words are used. Notice that no Church document ever uses the word supersession or supersessionism. Note here that the word is used as an adjective and not a noun or adverb.

Next consider this. All Jews are Israealites but not all Israelites are Jews. The word Jew never appears in the bible until around 400 BC. Often times you will read “men of Judah”. Salvation was from the tribe of Judah, men of Judah, the Jews.

The Church does not contradict Scripure. Recall how Paul says that those outside the Covenant without circumcision were a law unto themselves. In other words the Gentiles without the law were circumcised of the heart and were in the Covenant without the law.

If this is true then those outside the New Covenant, that are Baptized of the heart and do what the New Covenant demands are in the New Covenant without actually joining it. So far so good?

Next note how Paul uses Jew and then Israelite. Note that Paul says that the Old Covenant is dead, like a spouse.

So the Jews of today have no Levetical priesthood, no temple, and the Old Covenant is not revoked…it is dead…however those that follow what they can of the Old Covenant are remnants in the Old Covenant that do what the New Covenant demands, then in some way we recognize that the synagogue has salvific significance for the Jew of today and that is not to equate with the Jew of the Bible, with a priesthood and a temple.

Has God abandoned his people? May it never be so.

Coptic,
I see the logic of what you are saying, except—I don’t think saying the Old Covenant has never been revoked means that it is dead.

You asked me for the source for Pope John Paul II’s statement regarding the Old Covenant never having been revoked.

So, would you provide a source for the Old Covenant never being revoked as meaning it is dead?

Peace,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Pen,

I think I understand this. I marvel at the wrtings of the Church and how words are used. Notice that no Church document ever uses the word supersession or supersessionism. Note here that the word is used as an adjective and not a noun or adverb.

Next consider this. All Jews are Israealites but not all Israelites are Jews. The word Jew never appears in the bible until around 400 BC. Often times you will read “men of Judah”. Salvation was from the tribe of Judah, men of Judah, the Jews.

The Church does not contradict Scripure. Recall how Paul says that those outside the Covenant without circumcision were a law unto themselves. In other words the Gentiles without the law were circumcised of the heart and were in the Covenant without the law.

If this is true then those outside the New Covenant, that are Baptized of the heart and do what the New Covenant demands are in the New Covenant without actually joining it. So far so good?

Next note how Paul uses Jew and then Israelite. Note that Paul says that the Old Covenant is dead, like a spouse.

So the Jews of today have no Levetical priesthood, no temple, and the Old Covenant is not revoked…it is dead…however those that follow what they can of the Old Covenant are remnants in the Old Covenant that do what the New Covenant demands, then in some way we recognize that the synagogue has salvific significance for the Jew of today and that is not to equate with the Jew of the Bible, with a priesthood and a temple.

Has God abandoned his people? May it never be so.

Coptic,
I see the logic of what you are saying, except—I don’t think saying the Old Covenant has never been revoked means that it is dead.

You asked me for the source for Pope John Paul II’s statement regarding the Old Covenant never having been revoked.

So, would you provide a source for the Old Covenant never being revoked as meaning it is dead?

Peace,
Anna

**THE PONTIFICAL BIBLICAL COMMISSION

THE JEWISH PEOPLE
AND THEIR SACRED SCRIPTURES
IN THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE
IV.**
CONCLUSIONS
B. Pastoral Orientations (2nd & 3rd paragraph

With this text, Vatican Two laid the foundations for a new understanding of our relations with Jews when it said that “according to the apostle (Paul), the Jews, because of their ancestors, still remain very dear to God, whose gifts and calling are irrevocable (Rm 11:29)”. 349

Through his teaching, John Paul II has, on many occasions, taken the initiative in developing this Declaration. During a visit to the synagogue of Mainz (1980) he said: “The encounter between the people of God of the Old Covenant, which has never been abrogated by God (cf. Rm 11:29), and that of the New Covenant is also an internal dialogue in our Church, similar to that between the first and second part of its Bible”. 350 Later, addressing the Jewish communities of Italy during a visit to the synagogue of Rome (1986), he declared: “The Church of Christ discovers its ‘links’ with Judaism ‘by pondering its own mystery’ (cf. Nostra Aetate). The Jewish religion is not ‘extrinsic’ to us, but in a certain manner, it is ‘intrinsic’ to our religion. We have therefore a relationship with it which we do not have with any other religion. You are our favoured brothers and, in a certain sense, one can say our elder brothers”. 351 Finally, in the course of a meeting on the roots of anti-Jewish feeling among Christians (1997) he said: “This people has been called and led by God, Creator of heaven and earth. Their existence then is not a mere natural or cultural happening,… It is a supernatural one. This people continues in spite of everything to be the people of the covenant and, despite human infidelity, the Lord is faithful to his covenant”. 352 This teaching was given the stamp of approval by John Paul II’s visit to Israel, in the course of which he addressed Israel’s Chief Rabbis in these terms: “We (Jews and Christians) must work together to build a future in which there will be no more anti-Jewish feeling among Christians, or any anti-Christian feeling among Jews. We have many things in common. We can do much for the sake of peace, for a more human and more fraternal world”. 353
Vatican Link: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20020212_popolo-ebraico_en.html#A.%20Christian%20Understanding%20of%20the%20relationships%20between%20the%20Old%20and%20New%20Testaments

This doesn’t sound like the Old Covenant is “dead.”

Peace,
Anna

 

[CopticChristian]

Coptic,
I see the logic of what you are saying, except—I don’t think saying the Old Covenant has never been revoked means that it is dead.

You asked me for the source for Pope John Paul II’s statement regarding the Old Covenant never having been revoked.

So, would you provide a source for the Old Covenant never being revoked as meaning it is dead?

Peace,
Anna

Anna,

The letter to the Romans says it is dead. You probably will not find without investigation anything explicit in Church documents. My experience in reading Church documents like Trent is that Romans is a specific letter drawn on for information. Often times things are not explicit but implicit.

No temple, no animal sacrifices, no Levitical priesthood…Scott Hahn says in a Bible study…I am quoting him…“Jews of today are lawbreakers”…now that is not a condemnation…it is just a statement that in consideration of the Old Covenant requirements Jews of today cannot comply. If you read between the lines, ask yourself…

Is the Old Covenant alive or is it dead…? It was not revoked…Jesus came to fulfill the law and if that is true then as one spouse dies the other is free to marry the one that is alive forever…Paul says it most clearly…

The Church says in kindness it was not revoked. This is true. If someone is married then the marriage is not revoked if one member dies…Sometimes what isn’t said is clearer than what is said. I believe to say it was not revoked is a kind way to say that whatever exists as a result of the fulfillment is not due to revocation.

 

[Anna_Scott]

**THE PONTIFICAL BIBLICAL COMMISSION

THE JEWISH PEOPLE
AND THEIR SACRED SCRIPTURES
IN THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE
IV.**
CONCLUSIONS
B. Pastoral Orientations (2nd & 3rd paragraph

With this text, Vatican Two laid the foundations for a new understanding of our relations with Jews when it said that “according to the apostle (Paul), the Jews, because of their ancestors, still remain very dear to God, whose gifts and calling are irrevocable (Rm 11:29)”. 349

Through his teaching, John Paul II has, on many occasions, taken the initiative in developing this Declaration. During a visit to the synagogue of Mainz (1980) he said: “The encounter between the people of God of the Old Covenant, which has never been abrogated by God (cf. Rm 11:29), and that of the New Covenant is also an internal dialogue in our Church, similar to that between the first and second part of its Bible”. 350 Later, addressing the Jewish communities of Italy during a visit to the synagogue of Rome (1986), he declared: “The Church of Christ discovers its ‘links’ with Judaism ‘by pondering its own mystery’ (cf. Nostra Aetate). The Jewish religion is not ‘extrinsic’ to us, but in a certain manner, it is ‘intrinsic’ to our religion. We have therefore a relationship with it which we do not have with any other religion. You are our favoured brothers and, in a certain sense, one can say our elder brothers”. 351 Finally, in the course of a meeting on the roots of anti-Jewish feeling among Christians (1997) he said: “This people has been called and led by God, Creator of heaven and earth. Their existence then is not a mere natural or cultural happening,… It is a supernatural one. This people continues in spite of everything to be the people of the covenant and, despite human infidelity, the Lord is faithful to his covenant”. 352 This teaching was given the stamp of approval by John Paul II’s visit to Israel, in the course of which he addressed Israel’s Chief Rabbis in these terms: “We (Jews and Christians) must work together to build a future in which there will be no more anti-Jewish feeling among Christians, or any anti-Christian feeling among Jews. We have many things in common. We can do much for the sake of peace, for a more human and more fraternal world”. 353
Vatican Link: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20020212_popolo-ebraico_en.html#A.%20Christian%20Understanding%20of%20the%20relationships%20between%20the%20Old%20and%20New%20Testaments

This doesn’t sound like the Old Covenant is “dead.”

Peace,
Anna

Anna,

The letter to the Romans says it is dead. You probably will not find without investigation anything explicit in Church documents. My experience in reading Church documents like Trent is that Romans is a specific letter drawn on for information. Often times things are not explicit but implicit.

No temple, no animal sacrifices, no Levitical priesthood…Scott Hahn says in a Bible study…I am quoting him…“Jews of today are lawbreakers”…now that is not a condemnation…it is just a statement that in consideration of the Old Covenant requirements Jews of today cannot comply. If you read between the lines, ask yourself…

Is the Old Covenant alive or is it dead…? It was not revoked…Jesus came to fulfill the law and if that is true then as one spouse dies the other is free to marry the one that is alive forever…Paul says it most clearly…

The Church says in kindness it was not revoked. This is true. If someone is married then the marriage is not revoked if one member dies…Sometimes what isn’t said is clearer than what is said. I believe to say it was not revoked is a kind way to say that whatever exists as a result of the fulfillment is not due to revocation.

Coptic,
I ask for your continued patience (your’ve always been kind in our discussions.) I’m trying to understand what you are saying. I know that Christ fullfilled the Law and the Prophets. I get that; and fulfillment can certainly be seen as a reason the Old Covenant was never revoked. However, the Catholic Church seems to be saying more than this.

What I’m having trouble understanding is how one can say the Old Covenant is dead (I could’nt find that in Romans); when the CC is saying------------the Old Covenant has never been revoked; the encounter between the people of God of the Old Covenant has never been abrogated by God; this people [referring to the Jewish people] continues in spite of everything to be the people of the covenant; and despite human infidelity, the Lord is faithful to his covenant; and the Jews, because of their ancestors, still remain very dear to God, whose gifts and calling are irrevocable; and the Jewish people have been called and led by God, Creator of heaven and earth; and their existence then is not a mere natural or cultural happening,… It is a supernatural one???

Where are you getting the teaching that the Old Covenant is dead? I can’t find it in Catechism or Vatican searches. I’m trying to do my homework, but I need a little help with a Catholic source for the teaching that “the Old Covenant is dead.”

Peace,
Anna

 

[CopticChristian]

Coptic,
I ask for your continued patience (your’ve always been kind in our discussions.) I’m trying to understand what you are saying. I know that Christ fullfilled the Law and the Prophets. I get that; and fulfillment can certainly be seen as a reason the Old Covenant was never revoked. However, the Catholic Church seems to be saying more than this.

What I’m having trouble understanding is how one can say the Old Covenant is dead (I could’nt find that in Romans); when the CC is saying------------the Old Covenant has never been revoked; the encounter between the people of God of the Old Covenant has never been abrogated by God; this people [referring to the Jewish people] continues in spite of everything to be the people of the covenant; and despite human infidelity, the Lord is faithful to his covenant; and the Jews, because of their ancestors, still remain very dear to God, whose gifts and calling are irrevocable; and the Jewish people have been called and led by God, Creator of heaven and earth; and their existence then is not a mere natural or cultural happening,… It is a supernatural one???

Where are you getting the teaching that the Old Covenant is dead? I can’t find it in Catechism or Vatican searches. I’m trying to do my homework, but I need a little help with a Catholic source for the teaching that “the Old Covenant is dead.”

Peace,
Anna

Anna,

The Old Covenant was not abrogated, it was not revoked, but that does not mean that it still exists as the Old Covenant. Yes God still abides with his people. Take this in steps. Let’s look at this Catholic document…the letter to the Hebrews.

11Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the Law), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of Aaron? 12For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also. 13For the one concerning whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no one has officiated at the altar. 14For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, a tribe with reference to which Moses spoke nothing concerning priests.

If the Jews were the chosen people, chosen for what? If because the lion of the tribe of Judah was to be the real King of Israel, the real High priest, then if King of Isreal, is Irael dirt or is it a spiritual Kingdom? If Jesus is Priest, King, Propehet and He is the High Priest…there is no longer a need for the Levetical Priesthood and therefore what does that say of the Old Covenant.

Old Covenant needs Temple, Law, Levitical Priesthood, sacrifices…so the Law is abolished, temple destroyed, and the Priesthood is replaced…what does that do to the Old Covenant…is it alive?

The OHCAC can say it was not abrogated or revoked…it was not abolished. It was not revoked but dismantled piece by piece and when that happens it no longer lives.

Yes the Jews are the people of the Covenant, yes the Jews are the people of the promise, yes the Lord is faithful to his covenant…but does it say Old Covenant. The Lord is faithful to His covenant, is He not?

 

[Anna_Scott]

Anna,

The Old Covenant was not abrogated, it was not revoked, but that does not mean that it still exists as the Old Covenant. Yes God still abides with his people. Take this in steps. Let’s look at this Catholic document…the letter to the Hebrews.

If the Jews were the chosen people, chosen for what? If because the lion of the tribe of Judah was to be the real King of Israel, the real High priest, then if King of Isreal, is Irael dirt or is it a spiritual Kingdom? If Jesus is Priest, King, Propehet and He is the High Priest…there is no longer a need for the Levetical Priesthood and therefore what does that say of the Old Covenant.

Old Covenant needs Temple, Law, Levitical Priesthood, sacrifices…so the Law is abolished, temple destroyed, and the Priesthood is replaced…what does that do to the Old Covenant…is it alive?

The OHCAC can say it was not abrogated or revoked…it was not abolished. It was not revoked but dismantled piece by piece and when that happens it no longer lives.

Yes the Jews are the people of the Covenant, yes the Jews are the people of the promise, yes the Lord is faithful to his covenant…but does it say Old Covenant. The Lord is faithful to His covenant, is He not?

Coptic,

Thank you. It’s starting to make sense now.

Peace and blessings,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

what are called “anti-Christian” activities.

christianbeliefs.org/articles/disp&jews.html

NOTE: the following article is presented to show the gross anti-Christian activities of some prominent New Evangelical Dispensationalists*.

Evangelical Free Churches are dispensational. Dispensationalists in their activity approach Judaism not as Judaism but a means to an end. This article discusses what is called “anti-Christian” activity.

It is my opinion that although Dispensationalist Christians say they love the Jewish people it is with the intent other than just to love them as people but a means to an end…thoughts.

Coptic, Coptic, Coptic,

I appreciate this thread. It has certainly pushed me to further study the issue. :coffeeread:

Thanks for your patience. :flowers:

Pen

P.S. No one else is allowed to address me as “Pen”–only Coptic.

 

[CopticChristian]

Coptic, Coptic, Coptic,

I appreciate this thread. It has certainly pushed me to further study the issue. :coffeeread:

Thanks for your patience. :flowers:

Pen

P.S. No one else is allowed to address me as “Pen”–only Coptic.

Pen Name Anna, mi amigo,

It is sad that many do not understand the implications of this Dispensational belief. In my opinion it is one of the greatest evils. I believe if you review post #48 in this thread…

post #48 in this thread outlines the evil associated with this belief
No Jew in his or her right mind should support anything Hagee says. His dispensationalist theology (he fancies himself a “prophecy expert”, whatever that is) teaches that all the Jews in the world will immigrate to Israel…where God will promptly wipe them out in the “tribulation”.

and I said this…

Evangelical Free Churches are dispensational. Dispensationalists in their activity approach Judaism not as Judaism but a means to an end. This article discusses what is called “anti-Christian” activity.

It is my opinion that although Dispensationalist Christians say they love the Jewish people it is with the intent other than just to love them as people but a means to an end…thoughts.

When I was investigating the Evangelical Free Churches I discovered that they had Lutheran roots, were ecumenical, and claimed dispensationalism in their statement of faith. I actually called and spoke to a handful of some of the Pastors of these Churches and each agreed that it was part of their belief. The sad part is that they tended to focus on a “personal relationship” with Christ and brush the dispensationalism under the rug…in my mind that is not acceptable…it is discounting that what they profess in their statement of faith is this inherent evil that I see in dispensationalism…it kind of gives me the hee bee geebees when the Evangelical Free Church member wants to get cozy with me and have this as part of their statement of Faith…

 

[Anna_Scott]

Pen Name Anna, mi amigo,

It is sad that many do not understand the implications of this Dispensational belief. In my opinion it is one of the greatest evils. I believe if you review post #48 in this thread…

and I said this…

When I was investigating the Evangelical Free Churches I discovered that they had Lutheran roots, were ecumenical, and claimed dispensationalism in their statement of faith. I actually called and spoke to a handful of some of the Pastors of these Churches and each agreed that it was part of their belief. The sad part is that they tended to focus on a “personal relationship” with Christ and brush the dispensationalism under the rug…in my mind that is not acceptable…it is discounting that what they profess in their statement of faith is this inherent evil that I see in dispensationalism…it kind of gives me the hee bee geebees when the Evangelical Free Church member wants to get cozy with me and have this as part of their statement of Faith…

Coptic,
Really, until this thread, I didn’t really understand the implications of Dispensationalism; and as I said before, I am certainly motivated to do more study on the issue. So, thank you. :thankyou:

Regarding your comments about Israel and the land; I do remember a conversation I had with my dear Jewish friends back in 2006, after Pat Roberston made another one of his brilliant comments, saying Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s severe stroke was possibly due to retribution from God for his intentions to give more land to the Palestinians. My Jewish friends said they were not upset with the Israeli Prime Minister, because he was trying to work out a peaceful resolution. Interesting.

As always, I appreciate your patience and charity.

Pen