The New Covenant

[ACHAIA]

I’m not sure if disagreeing with NP automatically makes me a ‘hater’ but here goes…

The reason I believe in catholicism is really quite simple. It is the faith entrusted by Christ to the apostles and, in turn, to their successors. Read scripture closely and you will see that people in 35 AD are no different than people in 1510AD or 2007 AD.

Then as today, others came along with different interpretations, novel ideas, revisionist readings of scripture, departures from the faith revealed to the apostles. Just as Acts and numerous Epistles, the proper means of discernment is to measure what is said by the new perspectives against the teaching of the legitimate apostles AND their writings and discard what conflicts.

My catholic faith is fundamentally unchanged from that of the apostles and their immediate successors. There is an enormous mountain of historical documentation of that fact. Yes, I have the benefit of 2,000 years of definitions and clarifications of the things already believed, but not always clearly defined. I also have the benefit of 2,000 years worth of hindsight and roadmap of theological detours to avoid.

EXCELLENT!

 

[exoflare]

I’m not sure if disagreeing with NP automatically makes me a ‘hater’ but here goes…

Yeah I was just about to say that too…

 

[exoflare]

The Covenant has always been one from GodAllahYHWH.
First: Belief in absolute ONENESS of GodAllahYHWH ,without dividing Him in persons/pieces.

“Oneness” has no real meaning here, nor is it given much thought… it’s just a slogan Muslims throw around every now and then because they hear it so much.

Second: Believing all ProphtesMessengers of GodAllahYHWH whomsoever he sends, its God’s choice, not ours, we have to accept them

, help them and respect them all. Denial of even one ProphetMessenger is denial of the Instituition of Prophethood. One who believe in the Covenant, is covered under it, otherwise not.This is what I believe, others are free to believe otherwise, no compulsion.
Thanks

Nice contradiction there

I understand that NTBible does not come from Jesus; it is mostly the working of Church.

Bible → comes from → Church → comes from → Jesus

 

[Mirdath]

I’m not sure if disagreeing with NP automatically makes me a ‘hater’ but here goes…

Just to clarify what I said, I’ve got nothing at all against respectful disagreement. NP used the word ‘attack’, which does not particularly speak of respectful disagreement – and in the other threads in which I’ve seen his posts, yeah, that’s just a little bit lacking.

 

[Subrosa]

Hi
The Covenant has always been one from GodAllahYHWH.
First: Belief in absolute ONENESS of GodAllahYHWH ,without dividing Him in persons/pieces.

Hi there paarsurrey -

You are misunderstanding christianity if you truly believe this last statement. Please be reassured that no human invented the Trinitarian doctrine, but that it has been revealed to us by God. In the early years of christianity it took much contemplation to understand this relationship and many tried to deny it, but in the 325ad the church held a council to decide the issue.

Here is thier decision…ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/NICAEA1.HTM

The Profession Of Faith Of The 318 Fathers

1. We believe in one God the Father all powerful, maker of all things both seen and unseen. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten begotten from the Father, that is from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, Consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things came to be, both those in heaven and those in earth; for us humans and for our salvation he came down and became incarnate, became human, suffered and rose up on the third day, went up into the heavens, is coming to judge the living and the dead. And in the holy Spirit.

1. And those who say
   1. “there once was when he was not”, and “before he was begotten he was not”, and that
   ​

​

1. he came to be from things that were not, or from another hypostasis or substance, affirming that the Son of God is subject to change or alteration these the catholic and apostolic church anathematises.

Second: Believing all ProphtesMessengers of GodAllahYHWH whomsoever he sends, its God’s choice, not ours, we have to accept them, help them and respect them all. Denial of even one ProphetMessenger is denial of the Instituition of Prophethood.

No one here denies any prophet. The question arises as to legitimacy. Christianity is filled with “prophets” who claim to be speaking for God: Mary Baker Eddy; Joseph Smith; Ellen G. White; and many more have taken up the claim of divine inspiration.

The Catholic Church takes it’s beliefs from Jesus and His apostles. Unfortunately for Islam, I suppose, this excludes Muhammad (PBUH) because he came along almost 600 years afterward and is not counted among those in Christ’s company.

I am not saying that Islam is not a legitimate religion of God. Indeed, there are many devout and religious people in Islam. I am just saying that the canon of faith was closed before Muhammad (PBUH) came along.

I understand that NTBible does not come from Jesus; it is mostly the working of Church.

Your understanding is wrong. The NTBible is what is related directly from Christ and the Holy Spirit to the people who wrote the gospels and letters.

For instance, the letters written by Peter were written from a perspective of personal witness. Peter was a person who followed and was trained by Jesus during the entire time of His ministry here on earth.

God bless you,
Subrosa

 

[manualman]

An interesting thought on muslim objections to the Trinity:

Muslims label the Trinity as ‘pantheism in disguise’ because they unconsciously refuse to imagine that God can be more than man. Simply because neither I nor Muhammed can be three persons in one being does not mean God cannot be so. I find it surprising that muslims, who generally have a proper sense of awe in regards to the greatness of God insist that he is limited to being something totally comprehensible to puny man.

 

[Zooey]

An interesting thought on muslim objections to the Trinity:

Muslims label the Trinity as ‘pantheism in disguise’ because they unconsciously refuse to imagine that God can be more than man. Simply because neither I nor Muhammed can be three persons in one being does not mean God cannot be so. I find it surprising that muslims, who generally have a proper sense of awe in regards to the greatness of God insist that he is limited to being something totally comprehensible to puny man.

http://bestsmileys.com/clapping/6.g...ng/6.gifhttp://bestsmileys.com/clapping/6.gif

 

[mark_a]

Nobody has anything to say?

I think everyone has become his own expert.

Back in the day when people had a grueling lifestyle, a thousand kids, a life expectancy of 40 years, they more important, yes more important, things to do than nitpick the beliefs of others to justify his own.

Howzat?

 

[paarsurrey]

I have debated with you all on the principle of Old Testament sacraments and the Law of Moses which applied to the Jew not the Gentile before the New Covenant God made with us. Its not that the Law is wrong or that the sacraments are non-scriptural, its the premise that we are not under the Mosaic Covenant under which our goal as stewards is to live according to the Law.
NP

Hi
There is only one Covenant.
The covenant has been the same, as first time it is mentioned in Bible with reference to Noah; and from Noah to date, nobody could change it; if at all one could confirm it or revive it.

It does not befit a truthful man that GodAllahYHWH should give him his Word and Wisdom, and then he should say to men, 'Be my worshippers instead of GodAllahYHWH; but he would say, 'Be solely devoted to the Lord because you teach the Word and because you study it.
Nor does it befit him that he should bid you to take the angels and the Prophets for lords. What! Would he enjoin you to disbelieve after you have submitted to God.

And remember the time when GodAllahYHWH took a covenant from the people through the Noah for the first time as mentioned in OTBible and other Prophets also could only confirm or revive it, saying, ‘Whatever I give you of the Book and Wisdom and then there comes to you a Messenger, fulfilling that which is with you, you shall believe in him and help him.’ And He said, ‘Do you agree, and do you accept the responsibility which I lay upon you in this matter?’ They said, ‘We agree.’ He said, ‘Then bear witness and I am with you among the witnesses.’

Now whoso turns away after this, then, surely, those are the transgressors.

So it is wrong to say that GodAllahYHWH made some new Covenant with the Christians, if they say so, then they are mistaken, as that tantamount breaking the Covenant with GodAllahYHWH altogether.The Covenant would change when the rainbow is changed.

Thanks

 

[paarsurrey]

Nobody has anything to say?

Hi

Wel I have spoken something, but not even you have replied.

Thanks

 

[Curious]

NP,

I’m honestly confused. How do Catholics live under OT law? When I think of OT law, I think of making sure not to eat pigs, and sacrificing animals, separating women during their monthly time and so on.

Can you explain it to me?

 

[Mannyfit75]

NP,

I’m honestly confused. How do Catholics live under OT law? When I think of OT law, I think of making sure not to eat pigs, and sacrificing animals, separating women during their monthly time and so on.

Can you explain it to me?

The moral law of the OT remains unchanged. All dietary laws of the OT no longer apply since the Council of Jerusalem.

If you want more detail information you can pm or write me any email.