Is unity among Christians possible outside of the RCC?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mudcat
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The 2000 year old Catholic Church has remained unchanged because of the “True Presence” of Jesus Christ in the Parousia. I find it difficult to understand how one can claim to have the Spirit without the body of Jesus Christ? are the two separated?

The Catholic church is never divided, her members may seek seclusion, separation, individualism etc… But She herself will never succumb to a separation of the Holy Spirit and the body of Jesus Christ.
Hi Gabriel,

I suppose I find your above statement a bit challenging for me to understand. I bolded the last bit of it. Seems you refer to the Church as She, I suppose that makes sense, being the bride of Christ and all. However the part I am having trouble with it the bit about her members seeking seclusion,etc.

I suppose I have always seen it that people are the Church, you can’t have one without the other, so to speak. Yet you seem to be almost creating two separate identities. Did I misread? and could you clarify that?
The Catholic church represents all of Christianity to secular powers and powers and prinicipalities through our Lord Jesus Christ personified in the Mass liturgy. From this percpective all baptised Christians have a membership in the body of Jesus Christ, but as our seperated brethern (catechumens) who are not perfected through the mystical body of Jesus Christ yet, and who are not fully catechised into the Myteries of God. So long as our seperated brethern refuse communion with the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.
This communion with our living God, will never be seperated among both living and deceased Catholic members.** This is what Jesus built upon Rock.**
Emphasis mine again, I always thought Catholics thought Peter was the Rock. Am I misunderstanding this?
Our seperated brethern, as the present passes into history proves a continuous splintering among their own members. Thus multiple different christian (belief’s) denominations.
The unity among all christians is the Word of God, what seperates us, is the Catholic Church contains both the Word of God made flesh in her presence. From the many seperated brethern, few that have seperated themselves from the body of Jesus Christ (Catholic church) and his magisterium or apostolic succession have remained in the sacramental ecomony of God, but reject parts of “the full deposit of faith” which has come down to us today unchanged for 2000 years. The communion.
Yes, I think I understand this.
Now it appears that the Catholic Church professess an arrogance from her “Rock” stance on Truth, but what she is doing is proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ, at all costs since pentecost. If God does not find her doing so will succumb to the wrath of God, just as the first century temple where Gods name dwelt was destroyed in 70 a.d. So you see, she cannot be moved by every wind of doctrine that has come from our seperated brethern. She will pray, intercede and sacrifice for unity for our seperated brethern and live in peace. But ultimately it’s God’s will that will be done.
Well, I don’t think believing someone else is wrong about things is arrogant. If that was the case, we would all be arrogant, wouldn’t we;). However, I do appreciate the fact that you think your brothers and sisters could be wrong. I appreciate the fact that you believing them to be wrong doesn’t also mean they aren’t your brothers and sisters.
As far as unity among Evangelicals? Unity exists in their seperation from the body of Jesus Christ his Catholic Church, but continue to splinter into history further away from the body of Jesus Christ, as new christian teachings, sects, denominations, self proclaimed prophets and visionaries evolve who at times hurt the body of Jesus Christ as a whole.
Well, I don’t want to spark a debate, I would just say that you and I likely have two different understandings about how far reaching the body of Christ is.
Peace be with you
You also Gabriel, thanks for your comments.

Respectfully,

Mudcat
 
Ok, we need to clarify which covenants we are talking about. The covenant between God and Abraham is not generally considered the old covenant. It is the covenant between God and the children of Israel orally first and then on tables of stone written by God and given to the children by Moses That is considered the old covenant or testament.

Gabriel of 12;

Let’s recapp; The topic of discussion deals with “unity among Christians”. I recommend an accurate understanding of “Covenant” in the terms of the New Covenant in and through Jesus for humanity. I also stated there can be no unity among Christian believers without the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ which is his “True Presence” in the Parousia. Now, I apologize of speaking about this Mystagogy (Mysteries) of God to you that deals with the divine economy (plan) of God. I gather from your response it appears that I may have confused you something terribly about these mysteries.

Thus far you have spoken of the High Priesthood of Jesus Christ, the priesthood of the New Covenant Kingdom, a symbolic spirit from scripture that does not exist and never will exist, and covenant of which you gave an incorrect biblical meaning and misunderstanding. I will mention also that your interpretation of the scripture leaves you wide open for scandal because it conflicts with the whole of God’s inspired Word which includes both Old and New Testaments by which not a single letter contradicts itself.

You have raised too many misunderstandings of what I was commenting upon, for this, I apologize.

I dont think answering each of your comments will serve you much or this board. Because the misinterpretations of scripture you accuse me of, is 2000 years old. The misinterpretation that you reveal is either your personal own interpretation or it comes from a heretical view from the late 19th century. Soaking your commentary with scripture does not equate accurate interpretation, but has served to bring much confusion to the topic, of which no one is understanding each other here.

What you have inaccurately interpreted about my comments leads me to believe, I have not been clear enough, It does me no pleasure to soak the thread with scripture, that support a 2000 year old Christian teaching of the “Parousia” True presence of Jesus Christ. When you have missed the basic introduction.

With your approval, if you seek a satisfaction for a clear answer from me, please indicate of which topic? dealing with Covenant ‘s, Eucharist, Priesthood, Sacrifice or a scripture interpretation? Let us take one of these at a time clarify our position and move on to the next should it please you. These posts are getting to large, and deals with too many different misunderstandings. It is my prayer that we both get the most of each others’ understanding and reveal what we have a misunderstanding of; For example The Eucharist is never a resacrifice of our Lord Jesus, of which you mistakenly interpret from a 19th century interpretation of scripture. I would love to help you with your misinformed and or misunderstood Catholic 2000 year old Christian teaching.

Richard Kastner;
Covenant or testament does not mean “a family relationship” The words are synonomus with contract.

Gabriel of 12;

There is not one biblical scholar dead or alive be it Christian or Jewish; that would agree with your definition of Covenant above.

Peace be with you
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabriel of 12
The 2000 year old Catholic Church has remained unchanged because of the “True Presence” of Jesus Christ in the Parousia. I find it difficult to understand how one can claim to have the Spirit without the body of Jesus Christ? are the two separated?

The Catholic church is never divided, her members may seek seclusion, separation, individualism etc… But She herself will never succumb to a separation of the Holy Spirit and the body of Jesus Christ.

Mudcat;

I suppose I find your above statement a bit challenging for me to understand. I bolded the last bit of it. Seems you refer to the Church as She, I suppose that makes sense, being the bride of Christ and all. However the part I am having trouble with it the bit about her members seeking seclusion,etc.

Gabriel of 12;
What I mean by her members may seek seclusion, separation, individualism etc. I was referencing the history from where Protestantism or our separated brethren came from the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church. For the first 1500 years since the resurrection and Pentecost there has only been one Christian faith and it is Catholic. I don’t say this of my own account, Historical facts proves this account.

So to put it bluntly, all separated Christians from the Catholic Church have their foundations in the Catholic faith. If one could research his/her roots of their Christian faith, they will learn that their founders came from the Catholic Church, but sought separation, and much individualism. The Christian faith is not an individual denomination or body of believers calling themselves a Church, The Christian faith is “UNIVERSAL” CATHOLIC, and the Church is the body of Jesus Christ, not a building or members of a society group.

Mudcat;
I suppose I have always seen it that people are the Church, you can’t have one without the other, so to speak. Yet you seem to be almost creating two separate identities. Did I misread? and could you clarify that?

Gabriel of 12;
There are two separate bodies of communion. There is Only One Holy Catholic Apostolic Communion which is the True presence of Jesus Christ, this communion unites all of her believers both those in heaven and all over the world on earth. The other communion has only existed 500 years which splintered into the many others which are less than a 100 years old. These include all those non Catholics who adhere to their own individual belief’s and traditions, and who have invented their own communion among themselves isolated themselves from the One and Holy Communion with Jesus which he gave us in the New and Everlasting Covenant.

Quote:Gabriel of 12
The Catholic church represents all of Christianity to secular powers and powers and prinicipalities through our Lord Jesus Christ personified in the Mass liturgy. From this percpective all baptised Christians have a membership in the body of Jesus Christ, but as our seperated brethern (catechumens) who are not perfected through the mystical body of Jesus Christ yet, and who are not fully catechised into the Myteries of God. So long as our seperated brethern refuse communion with the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.

This communion with our living God, will never be seperated among both living and deceased Catholic members. This is what Jesus built upon Rock.

Mudcat;
Emphasis mine again, I always thought Catholics thought Peter was the Rock. Am I misunderstanding this?

Gabriel of 12;
Forgive my speech in generalities. Peter is the Rock of which Jesus built his Church. That is why I referenced the living and deceased, which includes all these in the Church which is the body of Jesus Christ who is the corner stone of whom the builders rejected. Thereby Jesus building his own Church in his body upon Peter translated “Rock” of whom he gave the keys to the Kingdom of God see Matthew 16:14-19

Mudcat;
Well, I don’t want to spark a debate, I would just say that you and I likely have two different understandings about how far reaching the body of Christ is.

Gabriel of 12;

No debate needed as long as we are sharing our belief’s and understandings; All I can say here is that my understanding of how far reaching the body of Jesus Christ is encompasses both heaven and earth.

What we do misunderstand maybe is the difference between what is the Body of Jesus Christ which is the Catholic Church and he, Jesus is the head of his body in heaven always Present to His bride the Catholic Church in His body, blood, soul and divinity in the Holy Eucharist.

What may clear up our misunderstandings is understanding the biblical teachings of what the Church is, what the Eucharist or Thanksgiving in the breaking of bread from the bible means, and finally Spirit, there is no such thing as a symbolic spirit in the bible. From the spirit is where we begin to misunderstand each other.

You cannot have the True presence of Jesus Christ in his parousia of body, blood, soul an divinity without the Holy Spirit who himself reveals all these mysteries of God to us, and teaches us these mysteries since pentecost. You cannot have the Holy Spirit withou the body. If one is missing then one cannot have the full deposit of faith in Jesus Christ.

Thanks for your response’
Peace of Lord Jesus Christ be with you
 
I would like to share my experience. I am coming into the Catholic Church. I was formerly a Southern Baptist. I had stopped going to my church, because I felt that I was no longer experiencing a spiritual life. I didn’t know that at the time, I only knew that I felt empty and didn’t want to go there anymore. I didn’t go to church for about 4 years.
About 3 months ago, God began to draw me back to Himself through various means. I saw the movie “Angels and Demons” accidently. Then I read Bill O’Reilly’s autobiography and he talked about growing up Catholic. That appealed to me. I began to be drawn to the Catholic Church. So I called a Deacon at a local Church and inquired how to become a Catholic. I began reading Catholic Apologetics and books by protestants who became catholic like Scot Hahn and Richard Neuhaus. They laid to rest all the “evil” of the Catholic Church. All of the things that I had been taught about the Catholic Church, I discovered were completely false. I don’t think that my Pastors were liars, they just passed on what they had been taught.
Many of the beliefs about Catholicism that run counter to Protestant beliefs, I came to realize can only be fully understood in the Catholic Church. The big one is the Eucharist. Most people know that only Catholics believe that the bread and wine literally become the body and blood of Jesus Christ so that when you receive the Bread and Wine, you take Jesus into you. When you read the 6th Chapter of The Gospel of John, Jesus says that you must eat His Flesh and drink His Blood. This is not a figure of speech, it must be taken literally or it doesn’t make sense. Because of what to me was an amazing discovery of the truth of the Eucharist, I have become completely drawn into the Catholic Church. I hope to become confirmed soon.
The Catholic Church has been the repository of the Church since the beginning. It was commissioned by Jesus Himself. This is not opinion, it is fact. I know that there have been problems in the past, but the Holy Spirit has kept the Catholic Church and She is the standard bearer in the Christian world.
I say all of that to say this. I finally found the Truth in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is the Bride of Christ and She is the true Holy Apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ. If there is to be any coming together among Christians, it will be accomplished when all christians come back to the Catholic Church. The Church cannot waterdown the truth, She cannot deny any of the truths, the teachings of the Church or deny the traditions of the Church in order to accommodate other faiths. That would mean that She would deny Herself.
If you have been baptized in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit, the Church will welcome you with open arms. It has been an amazing experience for me and I invite all Protestants come join me.
 
I would like to share my experience. I am coming into the Catholic Church. I was formerly a Southern Baptist. I had stopped going to my church, because I felt that I was no longer experiencing a spiritual life. I didn’t know that at the time, I only knew that I felt empty and didn’t want to go there anymore. I didn’t go to church for about 4 years.
About 3 months ago, God began to draw me back to Himself through various means. I saw the movie “Angels and Demons” accidently. Then I read Bill O’Reilly’s autobiography and he talked about growing up Catholic. That appealed to me. I began to be drawn to the Catholic Church. So I called a Deacon at a local Church and inquired how to become a Catholic. I began reading Catholic Apologetics and books by protestants who became catholic like Scot Hahn and Richard Neuhaus. They laid to rest all the “evil” of the Catholic Church. All of the things that I had been taught about the Catholic Church, I discovered were completely false. I don’t think that my Pastors were liars, they just passed on what they had been taught.
Many of the beliefs about Catholicism that run counter to Protestant beliefs, I came to realize can only be fully understood in the Catholic Church. The big one is the Eucharist. Most people know that only Catholics believe that the bread and wine literally become the body and blood of Jesus Christ so that when you receive the Bread and Wine, you take Jesus into you. When you read the 6th Chapter of The Gospel of John, Jesus says that you must eat His Flesh and drink His Blood. This is not a figure of speech, it must be taken literally or it doesn’t make sense. Because of what to me was an amazing discovery of the truth of the Eucharist, I have become completely drawn into the Catholic Church. I hope to become confirmed soon.
The Catholic Church has been the repository of the Church since the beginning. It was commissioned by Jesus Himself. This is not opinion, it is fact. I know that there have been problems in the past, but the Holy Spirit has kept the Catholic Church and She is the standard bearer in the Christian world.
I say all of that to say this. I finally found the Truth in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is the Bride of Christ and She is the true Holy Apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ. If there is to be any coming together among Christians, it will be accomplished when all christians come back to the Catholic Church. The Church cannot waterdown the truth, She cannot deny any of the truths, the teachings of the Church or deny the traditions of the Church in order to accommodate other faiths. That would mean that She would deny Herself.
If you have been baptized in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit, the Church will welcome you with open arms. It has been an amazing experience for me and I invite all Protestants come join me.
Man; you just summarized what I have been talking about by many posts, how does that happen? Ahhh the Lord works in mysterious ways…

Welcome home, and may the peace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you that overcomes every obstacle including the second death.👍

P.S Bill O’ Reilly, cracks me up, I have to admit, I am a fan and listen to his radio shows.
 
Hello Gab, Peace be with you
Gabriel of 12;
Let’s recapp; The topic of discussion deals with “unity among Christians”. I recommend an accurate understanding of “Covenant” in the terms of the New Covenant in and through Jesus for humanity.
Heb 9:14How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
15And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
16For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
18Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.
19For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,
20Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.

This is how I understand covenant. If you have some other understanding, please explain.
I also stated there can be no unity among Christian believers without the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ which is his “True Presence” in the Parousia. Now, I apologize of speaking about this Mystagogy (Mysteries) of God to you that deals with the divine economy (plan) of God. I gather from your response it appears that I may have confused you something terribly about these mysteries.
I cannot respond to this because I don.t know where to find this post. That’s why I use the quote boxes. Then it’s not just me saying that’s what you said, I can show it.
Thus far you have spoken of the High Priesthood of Jesus Christ, the priesthood of the New Covenant Kingdom, a symbolic spirit from scripture that does not exist and never will exist, and covenant of which you gave an incorrect biblical meaning and misunderstanding.
Again this is where quote boxes would come in handy. I recall talking of Jesus high priesthood and the priesthood of the faithful, but I went back and looked at the posts and I can’t find where I said anything about a symbolic spirit.
I will mention also that your interpretation of the scripture leaves you wide open for scandal because it conflicts with the whole of God’s inspired Word which includes both Old and New Testaments by which not a single letter contradicts itself.
How does my interpretation conflict with God’s word.
You have raised too many misunderstandings of what I was commenting upon, for this, I apologize.
I was commenting on what I considered your misunderstanding. For this I make no apologies. Perhaps if we both listen to one another and prayerfully consider the others responce, we can come away with at least a better understanding of one another, if not agree.
I dont think answering each of your comments will serve you much or this board.
My comments or questions are in responce to your posts where I feel a comment is warranted or clarification is needed, whether you choose to do the same or not is up to you.
Because the misinterpretations of scripture you accuse me of, is 2000 years old.
Well, accuse is a pretty harsh word and I don’t know if it applies to misinterpretation. Again you are not specific as to what scripture I “accuse” you of misinterpreting, but even if you have misinterpreted scripture. That misinterpretation is not 2000 years old. It can be no older than you are. I’m assumming you are not 2000 years old.
The misinterpretation that you reveal is either your personal own interpretation or it comes from a heretical view from the late 19th century.
What misinterpretation would thaat be?
Soaking your commentary with scripture does not equate accurate interpretation, but has served to bring much confusion to the topic, of which no one is understanding each other here.
You bring up many topics in your posts which require many responses. Holy scripture is my only basis of truth. Jn. 17:17Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. Are you saying scripture confuses the topic? I don’t think scripture is the least bit confusing.
What you have inaccurately interpreted about my comments leads me to believe, I have not been clear enough
How have I inaccurately interpreted your your comments?
It does me no pleasure to soak the thread with scripture, that support a 2000 year old Christian teaching of the “Parousia” True presence of Jesus Christ.
Why wouldn’t you want to verify your teaching with scripture?
When you have missed the basic introduction.
Enlighten me.

continued:
 
continuance:
With your approval, if you seek a satisfaction for a clear answer from me, please indicate of which topic? dealing with Covenant ‘s, Eucharist, Priesthood, Sacrifice or a scripture interpretation? Let us take one of these at a time clarify our position and move on to the next should it please you. These posts are getting to large, and deals with too many different misunderstandings. It is my prayer that we both get the most of each others’ understanding and reveal what we have a misunderstanding of;
As I have said I am merely answering your posts. If they are too long it’s because you are covering multipule topics. A good example is this paragraph, where you say we’re getting too long and then you say:
For example The Eucharist is never a resacrifice of our Lord Jesus, of which you mistakenly interpret from a 19th century interpretation of scripture. I would love to help you with your misinformed and or misunderstood Catholic 2000 year old Christian teaching.
Do you think that I should allow these statements to go by unanswered?
Again Gab, I am merely answering your posts. you said
The New Covenant has to be renewed and a perpetual sacrifice made unto God,
To which I replied
So you **are **saying that Jesus’ sacrifice has to be repeated over and over again. Isn’t this against what it says in Hebrews 10:10By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
If I am misinterpreting what you mean by “The New Covenant has to be renewed” please explain. That’s simple enough, right?
Richard Kastner;
Covenant or testament does not mean “a family relationship” The words are synonomus with contract.
Gabriel of 12;
There is not one biblical scholar dead or alive be it Christian or Jewish; that would agree with your definition of Covenant above.
Peace be with you
This from The Catholic Dictionary:
COVENANT, BIBLICAL
In the Old Testament an agreement between God and Israel in which God promised protection to the Chosen People in return for exclusive loyalty. “If you obey my voice and hold fast to my covenant, you of all nations will be my very own” (Exodus 19:5). Moses presented Yahweh’s offer to his people, who promptly “answered as one, ‘All that Yahweh has said we will do.’” The compact was sealed (Exodus 19:8). Many years later Jeremiah prophesied that a new covenant would be offered. “Deep within them,” Yahweh promised, “I will plant my law, writing it on their hearts” (Jeremiah 31:31-34). Ezekiel foresaw that God would “make a covenant of peace with the, an eternal covenant” (Ezekiel 37:26). Its universal character was foreshadowed by Isaiah, to whom it was revealed by Yahweh, “so that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth” (Isaiah 49:6). In the New Testament, when Paul was explaining to the Corinthians the institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper, he repeated Christ’s words: “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, Whenever you drink it, do this as a memorial of me” (I Corinthians 11:25). This master idea of the New Testament is reinforced in the Letter to the Hebrews: “It follows that it is a greater covenant for which Jesus has become our guarantee” (Hebrews 7:22). Christ himself is the new covenant between God and his people. (Etym. Latin convenire, to agree, to come together.)

From wikipedia:
In a religious context
See also: Covenant (biblical)
In certain religions, a covenant is a formal alliance or agreement made by God with that religious community or with humanity in general. This sort of covenant is an important concept in Judaism and Christianity, derived in the first instance from the biblical covenant tradition. An example of a covenant relationship in Judaism and Christianity is that between Abraham and God, in which God made a covenant with Abraham that He would bless Abraham’s descendants making them more numerous than the stars. Also Job made a covenant with his eyes (Job 31:1).[1] Christianity asserts that God made an additional covenant through Jesus Christ, called the “new covenant”, in which Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross would atone for the sins of all who put their faith in him (Matthew 26:28). In Islam God reminds all humanity of their covenants with him.[2]

From the dictionary for covenant:
cov·e·nant (kŭv’ə-nənt)
n.
A binding agreement; a compact.
A formal sealed agreement or contract.
A suit to recover damages for violation of such a contract.
In the Bible, God’s promise to the human race.
v. cov·e·nant·ed, cov·e·nant·ing, cov·e·nants

For contract:
con⋅tract  /n., adj., and usually for v. 15–17, 21, 22 ˈkɒntrækt; otherwise v. kənˈtrækt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [n., adj., and usually for v. 15–17, 21, 22 kon-trakt; otherwise v. kuhn-trakt]
–noun 1. an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified.
2. an agreement enforceable by law.
3. the written form of such an agreement.

For testament:
tes⋅ta⋅ment 
–noun 1. Law. a. a will, esp. one that relates to the disposition of one’s personal property.
b. will 2 (def. 8).
  1. either of the two major portions of the Bible: the Mosaic or old covenant or dispensation, or the Christian or new covenant or dispensation.
  2. (initial capital letter) the New Testament, as distinct from the Old Testament.
  3. (initial capital letter) a copy of the New Testament.
  4. a covenant, esp. between God and humans.
These words all with minor variations are pretty much synonyms, which in biblical terms mean a **contract **with God. A contract in which God decides the terms and crafts the wording, but a contract non the less.
 
cont;

I Cor.11:27
Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. 12
28
A person should examine himself, 13 and so eat the bread and drink the cup.
29
For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment 14 on himself.
30
That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.
31
If we discerned ourselves, we would not be under judgment;
32
but since we are judged by (the) Lord, we are being disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.

The blessings from the New Covnenant is what sustains Catholics in Jesus from the sacramental economy of God, the cursing of the New Covenant is what Catholics most fear which is not God’s presence do Catholics fear, but our greatest fear is Loosing God.

To believe in the name of Jesus is to call upon the name of God, and this can only be done liturgically, publically according to the covenant laws, that is why Jesus forbade this followers not swear and oath. Which deals with the presence of the divine, like I mentioned another topic of discussion if you wish.
 
continuance:

If I am misinterpreting what you mean by “The New Covenant has to be renewed” please explain. That’s simple enough, right?

This from The Catholic Dictionary:
COVENANT, BIBLICAL
In the Old Testament an agreement between God and Israel in which God promised protection to the Chosen People in return for exclusive loyalty. "If you obey my voice and hold fast to my covenant, you of all nations will be my very own" (Exodus 19:5).

From the dictionary for covenant:
cov·e·nant (kŭv’ə-nənt)
n.
A binding agreement; a compact.
A formal sealed agreement or contract.
A suit to recover damages for violation of such a contract.
In the Bible, God’s promise to the human race.
v. cov·e·nant·ed, cov·e·nant·ing, cov·e·nants

For contract:
con⋅tract  /n., adj., and usually for v. 15–17, 21, 22 ˈkɒntrækt; otherwise v. kənˈtrækt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [n., adj., and usually for v. 15–17, 21, 22 kon-trakt; otherwise v. kuhn-trakt]
–noun 1. an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified.
2. an agreement enforceable by law.
3. the written form of such an agreement.

For testament:
tes⋅ta⋅ment 
–noun 1. Law. a. a will, esp. one that relates to the disposition of one’s personal property.
b. will 2 (def. 8).
  1. either of the two major portions of the Bible: the Mosaic or old covenant or dispensation, or the Christian or new covenant or dispensation.
  2. (initial capital letter) the New Testament, as distinct from the Old Testament.
  3. (initial capital letter) a copy of the New Testament.
  4. a covenant, esp. between God and humans.
These words all with minor variations are pretty much synonyms, which in biblical terms mean a **contract **with God. A contract in which God decides the terms and crafts the wording, but a contract non the less.
The Catholic biblical reference gives the closest biblical meaning of covenant which I highlighted above from your quote. The biblical covenant is an exchange of persons making them one followed by blessings or cursings. A contract is an exchange of goods and materials. For example the contract is fulfilled when both parties exchange ones goods for the others materials fulfulling the contract.

The biblical covenant on the other hand is a life for a life not an exchange for goods. What good can man give God to exchange in a contract? answer “nothing”. The covenant is fulfilled only by the death of the testator. It takes a death the spilling of blood in order for the covenant to be fulfilled. A contract does not bind oneself life to another (life) person, only the legality of the exchange for goods, materials, property and or services are what’s at stake here never a life.

So a contract is never a covenant. What makes a legal contract binding is not the contract, it is the swearing an oath that makes it covenant. Today the signature applied to a contract makes an oath or promise to adhere to the conditions of the contract. The contract itself is not a covenant. Again by this oath or promisary note does not make it a biblical covenant (which requires blood) only legal and binding for the exchange of goods and services. That is why your secular meaning confuses the contract and the covenant due to an oath expressed in each. But the contract is never a covenant.

Which brings me to my next point to clarify the difference between a covenant and a contract. The covenant does not become valid unless a life is given or taken, followed by an Oath swear from both parties, Abraham, Moses who sacrificed victims to display what will happen to them should they fail the covenant of God, and God who swears by his own name. This validates the covenant, a life for a life which brings either blessings or curses from heaven. It is here by obedience the testator is the only giver. There is no exchange of goods and services in a covenant. A covenant is an exchange of life for life till death occurs which fulfills the covenant. A contract never does an exchange of persons. That is why Ex. 19:5 explains… “you of all nations will be my very own”.

Once this biblical covenant is understood, then we can move on to the new covenant in Jesus Christ and why non catholics if they do not come to this biblical understanding of the new covenant in Jesus they will remain outside his body which is the Catholic church. It is here when a non catholic will see scripture come to life in a real true sense and open the doors to ones heart and mind where the Holy Spirit will reveal all these mysteries of God to those who are honoring the New and everlasting covenant in Jesus blood.

It is the New Covenant biblical understanding in Jesus body, blood soul and divinity which can only unite all Christians and non christians.
 
I am an evangelical. I am not trying to sell you on my particular take on how things work.

I just wanted to post the question to you all. Hopefully some will recognize that Christianity has become somewhat of a disjointed mess of… We seem to have cordoned ourselves into groups that say, " I am going to heaven and you are going to hell."…

Much in the way a child says… “nah,nah,na,boo,boo”

What’s that all about anyways?

Is there a bigger picture that we all seem to missing?

What do you think?

Mudcat
I, for one, think it would be FANTASTIC if all the Protestants united under one banner. 🙂 Why? 1. It would make reunification of Christians so much easier. Ecumenical talks would be simpler. 2. It would reintroduce to many Protestants the concept of the authority of the church. 3. It would be a poke into the eye to satan. Remember, our word ‘devil’ comes from ‘diablo’ - which is related to the word divide…

❤️ Love is Patient
 
This from The Catholic Dictionary:
COVENANT, BIBLICAL
In the Old Testament an agreement between God and Israel in which God promised protection to the Chosen People in return for exclusive loyalty. “If you obey my voice and hold fast to my covenant, you of all nations will be my very own” (Exodus 19:5).

The part I highlighted is how the Catholic dictionary defines covenant.
The Catholic biblical reference gives the closest biblical meaning of covenant which I highlighted above from your quote. The biblical covenant is an exchange of persons making them one followed by blessings or cursings. A contract is an exchange of goods and materials. For example the contract is fulfilled when both parties exchange ones goods for the others materials fulfulling the contract.
You completely ignore Your own Catholic dictionaries definition of what a covenant is and then highlight a part of a biblical v. designed to be an example of the agreement or contract between God and the House of Israel and then you go off and make up your own definition.

From the dictionary for covenant:
cov·e·nant (kŭv’ə-nənt)
n.
**A binding agreement; a compact.
A formal sealed agreement or contract.**A suit to recover damages for violation of such a contract.
In the Bible, God’s promise to the human race.
v. cov·e·nant·ed, cov·e·nant·ing, cov·e·nants

If you are willing to accept these definitions we can continue our dialogue, if not maybe you can find someone willing to accept your skewed concepts. I cannot.
 
I, for one, think it would be FANTASTIC if all the Protestants united under one banner. 🙂 Why? 1. It would make reunification of Christians so much easier. Ecumenical talks would be simpler.
The problem is that there is really nothing that unites Protestants that doesn’t also unite at least some of us with Rome. Another way of putting it is that on just about any issue you can imagine there are many Protestants who are closer to Catholicism than to many other Protestants. So union with Rome is actually easier (barring the historic distrust and suspicion) than union among all Protestants. The main counter-argument would be that your Communion’s insistence on infallibility and on a fairly robust number of doctrinal definitions (as well as on a level of disciplinary uniformity to which many Protestants are not accustomed) makes things much tougher. That’s true–but conservative Protestants are generally *narrower *doctrinally and in some cases more insistent on disciplinary uniformity. So union among *mainline *Protestant churches is relatively easy, but this isn’t really much of a gain, because such union usually strengthens those elements in all mainline churches that are furthest away from traditional Christian orthodoxy. We mainliners need to emphasize the search for unity with Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and more conservative Protestants rather than getting together in a big liberal club.

Edwin
 
I am an evangelical. I am not trying to sell you on my particular take on how things work.

I just wanted to post the question to you all. Hopefully some will recognize that Christianity has become somewhat of a disjointed mess of… We seem to have cordoned ourselves into groups that say, " I am going to heaven and you are going to hell."…

Much in the way a child says… “nah,nah,na,boo,boo”

What’s that all about anyways?

Is there a bigger picture that we all seem to missing?

What do you think?

Mudcat
Lets try it unity inside Rome hasnt worked.
 
This from The Catholic Dictionary:
COVENANT, BIBLICAL
In the Old Testament an agreement between God and Israel in which God promised protection to the Chosen People in return for exclusive loyalty. “If you obey my voice and hold fast to my covenant, you of all nations will be my very own” (Exodus 19:5).

The part I highlighted is how the Catholic dictionary defines covenant.

You completely ignore Your own Catholic dictionaries definition of what a covenant is and then highlight a part of a biblical v. designed to be an example of the agreement or contract between God and the House of Israel and then you go off and make up your own definition.

If you are willing to accept these definitions we can continue our dialogue, if not maybe you can find someone willing to accept your skewed concepts. I cannot.
What you have failed to see from the Catholic definition of a biblical covenant, She inserts a biblical reference from Ex.19:5 of which I highlighted from your original post (Where God makes Israel his own by the covenant). She also lists Ex.19:8, Jeremiah 31:31-34, Ez.37:26, Is.49:6, 1Cor.11:25, Heb.7:22.

What you are doing giving a secular definition of covenant in a biblical discussion supports my view why non catholics difficulty to unity is the lack of understanding of God’s covenant relationship.

Now, I am willing to discuss God’s covenant understanding from both a Hebrew/Catholic biblical understanding which do not conflict, but there is no need to discuss a secular definition that relates a covenant with a contract to mean the same thing. This my friend is not a biblical covenant when you relate God’s covenant to a secular defintion of contract.

Now I would love to introduce to you the New Covenant of which Jesus Christ himself established for us. In this New Covenant comes blessings and cursings just as all the other Covenants God made with his people. But we have to come to an understanding of what a biblical Covenant from God begins with, and what it is.

It is life long, exchange of persons, I am yours, and you are mine, followed by an Oath to keep the covenant with blessings and curses. Now if the Catholic dictionary definition does not suffice your biblical understanding, I could look up some Hebrew/ Rabbi quotes for you about a biblical covenant.

Maybe a discussion of the first 5 covenants should be addressed, before we get to the 6th one which Jesus fulfills the first 5 and ushers in a new creation with his new covenant? If non catholics can understand this, then they would see the Catholic Church as truly being the body of Jesus Christ on earth as it is in heaven. Without this ancient covenant understanding, non catholics will continue to splinter off one another further and further from the body of Jesus Christ.
 
We mainliners need to emphasize the search for unity with Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and more conservative Protestants rather than getting together in a big liberal club.

Edwin
Go for it. 🙂 I think that would be fantastic too. 😉

❤️ Love is Patient
 
What you have failed to see from the Catholic definition of a biblical covenant, She inserts a biblical reference from Ex.19:5 of which I highlighted from your original post (Where God makes Israel his own by the covenant). She also lists Ex.19:8, Jeremiah 31:31-34, Ez.37:26, Is.49:6, 1Cor.11:25, Heb.7:22.

What you are doing giving a secular definition of covenant in a biblical discussion supports my view why non catholics difficulty to unity is the lack of understanding of God’s covenant relationship.

Now, I am willing to discuss God’s covenant understanding from both a Hebrew/Catholic biblical understanding which do not conflict, but there is no need to discuss a secular definition that relates a covenant with a contract to mean the same thing. This my friend is not a biblical covenant when you relate God’s covenant to a secular defintion of contract.

Now I would love to introduce to you the New Covenant of which Jesus Christ himself established for us. In this New Covenant comes blessings and cursings just as all the other Covenants God made with his people. But we have to come to an understanding of what a biblical Covenant from God begins with, and what it is.

It is life long, exchange of persons, I am yours, and you are mine, followed by an Oath to keep the covenant with blessings and curses. Now if the Catholic dictionary definition does not suffice your biblical understanding, I could look up some Hebrew/ Rabbi quotes for you about a biblical covenant.
Originally Posted by Richard Kastner
This from The Catholic Dictionary:
COVENANT, BIBLICAL
In the Old Testament an agreement between God and Israel in which God promised protection to the Chosen People in return for exclusive loyalty.

Here is the definition of covenant once again from the Catholic dictionary. I left out the secular definition which agreed with the Catholic definition because it seems to confuse you. Let me ask you Gab. Are you willing to accept this definition? A simple yes or no will suffice.
 
Originally Posted by Richard Kastner
This from The Catholic Dictionary:
COVENANT, BIBLICAL
In the Old Testament an agreement between God and Israel in which God promised protection to the Chosen People in return for exclusive loyalty.

Here is the definition of covenant once again from the Catholic dictionary. I left out the secular definition which agreed with the Catholic definition because it seems to confuse you. Let me ask you Gab. Are you willing to accept this definition? A simple yes or no will suffice.
Although you took out the scripture relating to the definition which defines the Catholic definition or confirms it as a relationship not a contract.

So Yes, I follow the Catholic Definition as defined in its Old Testament support from scripture.

Where we differ apparently is you apply the definition of contract to the divine covenant. Maybe this explanation may help us here. A biblical Covenant is a (Sacramental) Marriage, no one can get out of the Valid Marriage only by Death which seperates them. A contract does not define a Marriage from biblical standards set by God in the beginning and again confirmed by Jesus in the New Testament.

I hope we can come to an understanding here, or someone outside looking in may be able to help. Because I could never accept the definition of Contract = to a biblical Covenant.

What do you think constitutes a covenant? Now I can accept the terminology of a contract because of the exchange of goods only, because in the biblical covenant there is not an exchange of goods but of persons. Maybe understanding this concept can help you see my position.

Peace be with you
 
Originally Posted by Richard Kastner

Here is the definition of covenant once again from the Catholic dictionary…
It is a definition from A Catholic dictionary. I assume you got it on line and it is useful with its limitations. It has no imprimatur listed and it is simplistic in nature not at all a complete definition. It is not authoritative by any means for that you would need to consult the Catechism.
 
Perhaps it’s just because I look at this historically and can see how drastically this attitude has declined over time, but I really see very little of that today. I would actually be much more patient with the fact of division if most of the divided groups believed that outsiders were going to hell. (I think that such an attitude is reprehensible, but if it were true it would justify division.) What is utterly indefensible is willfully remaining separate from people whom you recognize as brothers and sisters in Christ.

Perhaps you could list some of the churches where you have heard it claimed that all outsiders are going to hell. I have found such sentiments to be vanishingly rare.

In answer to your main question: no, I do not think that any meaningful “Christian unity” is possible without the participation of the bishop of Rome.

In Christ,

Edwin
Oneness Pentecostals believe you must be water baptized in the name of Jesus and that you must be baptized in the Holy Spirit with the initial evidence being speaking in tongues. If this has not happened you are not saved.

I am a trinitarian pentecostal that believes in the baptism as a very important symbol that every Christian must seek and we also believe in the baptism of the Holy Spirit with the initial evidence being speaking in tongues.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top