Old vs new covenant

  • Thread starter Thread starter Don9of11
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
=Todd Easton -I have looked for something authoritative from the Catholic Church that says exactly when the New Covenant was established. In the Glossary that appears at the end of my *Catechism, *in the entry for “Covenant,” it says in part, “In the New Testament or Covenant, Christ established a new and eternal covenant through his own sacrificial death and Resurrection.” (emphasis mine)

If I understand the *Glossary *statement correctly, the New Covenant was not completely established until Christ’s Resurrection. So, it would appear, since he died before Christ’s Resurrection, the Good Thief could not have died under the New Covenant.
Hi Todd, interesting perspective. But consider this. Christ died in order to effect the New Covenant. There can be no covenant w/o the letting of Blood, which took place. By rising from the dead, Christ sealed an alrealy completed NC.

Besides being a cause for intellectual debate, the theif as well as noone else entered Heaven until the Ressurection.

Love and prayers,
Pat
 
On Sunday, I printed out the entire conversation and after mass I asked our deacon, Rev.Dr.Fredrick Brown, SFO, if he would review the various exchanges and give me some advice on how to proceed. In the meantime, I have stopped the conversation. I would never sit down and try and debate with him or his mentors. I appreciate everyone’s responses and I will keep you posted.🙂
 
He is making a fundamental error. The text in Heb 9:16-17 refers directly and specifically to the Sinai covenant.

According to covenant practice in ancient Israel, parties who enter a covenant swear an oath that invokes a curse upon anyone who would dare to violate the covenant. This is precisely what Israel did at the foot of Mount Sinai when the nation entered its covenant with Yahweh. The ratification ceremony, which involved the slaying of oxen is a symbolic blood ritual, was a visible sign of the oath curse, signifying that Israel chose to accept the same deadly fate should it break the covenant. So, as soon as Israel betrayed the covenant at Sinai, falling down in worship before the golden calf, they placed themselved under the curse of death. However, instead of activating the full force of the curse then and there, God mercifully allowed Israel to live and instituted the annual Day of Atonement. He did this to hold the curse of death at bay until the time came when He would deal with the transgressions of his people in a difinitive way.

This is what Heb 9:16-17 is talking about. Paraphrased it reads: “Where there is a covenant (like the one made at Sinai), the death of the (unfaithful) covenant partner must be endured (once it is broken). For a covenant is confirmed (as being in effect) when death occurs, since it is never in force when the (guilty) covenant partner is living.”

The author is explaining how Israel, despite being guilty of transgressing the Mosaic covenant, was spared the curse of national death it had invoked upon itself. Instead, Jesus took this curse upon himself, finally putting the sanctions of the Mosaic covenant into full effect and bringing it all to an end.

For this reason he is mediator of a new covenant: since a death has taken place for deliverance from transgressions under the first covenant, those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance. (Heb 9:15)

Like I said before, he is making a fundamental error. The curse of death was not held at bay until Pentecost. It was held at bay until the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ.

For Christ did not enter into a sanctuary made by hands, a copy of the true one, but heaven itself, that he might now appear before God on our behalf. Not that he might offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters each year into the sanctuary with blood that is not his own; if that were so, he would have had to suffer repeatedly from the foundation of the world. But now once for all he has appeared at the end of the ages to take away sin by his sacrifice. (Heb 9:24-26)

I hope that helps.
 
Thanks ryanoniel, I understand your explanation clearly. I didn’t know that it referred directly and specifically to the Sinai covenant. That’s good know.🙂
 
On Sunday, I printed out the entire conversation and after mass I asked our deacon, Rev.Dr.Fredrick Brown, SFO, if he would review the various exchanges and give me some advice on how to proceed. In the meantime, I have stopped the conversation. I would never sit down and try and debate with him or his mentors. I appreciate everyone’s responses and I will keep you posted.🙂
I finally received a reply from our deacon this morning on this subject. I thought I would share his thoughts on this matter.
I read the texr of your fanily chat anf found a debate about the scriptures… I have three comments
1.you are all debating the littera sense if the scriptures and totally ignoring the fuller sense of the Bible What is Gid trying to teach us about the passage?
2. The fallen away catholic does not have the fulness of the scriptures- so it is not possible to have a meaningful eschange. He has already made uo his mind when he left the church. I would not debate him on scripture matters unless he is honestly seeking the truth/ He is now rejecting it (he’s not rejecting you. You must hold in to him and love him m being christ to him. You are the truth God wants to use to show him the way.
3. To serve him, you must raise the level of your scriptural sense. The Word of God must be in your heart: not just in your head. When The proclaimer of the gospel says"A reading from…etc. You make the sign ofthe cross on your head,onyour lipsl and over your heart. Youmust actually put the Word of God in your heart. Jesus must be visiblly present there for all to see. At he same time you mist see him in your brothers. When that occurs The Father draws people to Christ through U -
It’s God working through you. You have to let Him in first. You should be about that more then about the debate
With Love Dcn Brn
 
I love CA. I really don’t get all hung up on these things as I have enough trouble struggling with my own salvation. I like reading it though. It’s simple to me. I don’t care what covenant I come under. I just care if I’m saved. I would have loved to have been the thief on the cross. Without the suffering of course. God bless CA:)
 
I love CA. I really don’t get all hung up on these things as I have enough trouble struggling with my own salvation. I like reading it though. It’s simple to me. I don’t care what covenant I come under. I just care if I’m saved. I would have loved to have been the thief on the cross. Without the suffering of course. God bless CA:)
I am not good with acronyms; what does CA mean? Catholic Apologetics? 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top