Why the bible is most assuredly not a Catholic book,

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hisalone
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
CWBetts said:
What is very telling as that you have absolutely know knowledge on covenant theology. You have been told what it is, but you reject it because it does not match your bad theology. Whats more, you won’t tell us what you think it is. Possibly because you fear that we will be able to refute it.
Click to expand...
What is very telling as that you have absolutely know knowledge on covenant theology. You have been told what it is, but you reject it because it does not match your bad theology.
 
Lampo said:
"When supper was ended, he took the cup.
Again he gave you thanks and praise, gave the cup to his disciples, and said:
Code: 
"Take this, all of you, and drink from it:
This is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant.
It will be shed for you and for all, so that sins may be forgiven.
Do this in memory of me."'"
“This cup is the new covenant in my blood.” 1 Cor. 11:25

“This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you.” Luke 22:20

“Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.” Matt. 26:28

“This is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed 8 for many.” Mark 14:24
Click to expand...
When a covenant was cut in olden days a ritual was performed by both parties. One part of the ritual was a meal. The Lords Supper is the meal of the NewCovenant it is not the NewCaovenant but it is the meal of the NewCovenant.
If the covenant was a blood covenant then both parties would cut themselves and mingle one blood with another. Jesus shed blood is the blood of the NewCovenant it is not the NewCovenant but it is the blood of the NewCovenant.
 
CWBetts said:
What is very telling as that you have absolutely know knowledge on covenant theology. You have been told what it is, but you reject it because it does not match your bad theology. Whats more, you won’t tell us what you think it is. Possibly because you fear that we will be able to refute it.
Click to expand...
CW your fallible church has failed to teach you properly.
You dont need a magesterium to teach you what those verses mean it is clear to all that God intended that every believer know Him and not look to others to know Him because God would make Hiself known to all believers. You dont need a preist to teach you. You dont kneed a magesterium to teach you.
 
Hisalone said:
CW your fallible church has failed to teach you properly.
Click to expand...
Such arrogance, especially from one who won’t give us the “correct” teaching. You are not infallible yourself, yet you pronounce your own dogma.
 
Hisalone said:
When a covenant was cut in olden days a ritual was performed by both parties. One part of the ritual was a meal. The Lords Supper is the meal of the NewCovenant it is not the NewCaovenant but it is the meal of the NewCovenant.
If the covenant was a blood covenant then both parties would cut themselves and mingle one blood with another. Jesus shed blood is the blood of the NewCovenant it is not the NewCovenant but it is the blood of the NewCovenant.
Click to expand...
You know not of which you speak. A covenant is no simple agreement, but an extension of kinship, and an oath was always involved. A covenant also involved the invocation of a curse. For example there are times when the LORD “Swore on himself”. THat means that he would brong death upon himself if he did not fulfill his end of the deal…which He did. Which ironically opened the door for the “blessing on all nations” which was promised to Abraham. The nations listed at Pentecost were the contemporary names of the nations listed in Genesis. As for your requirements, what was the meal shared with Adam? Or Abraham? or Naoh? or David? Moses had the Passover, but what of the others? Or do those Covenants not count?
 
CWBetts said:
Such arrogance, especially from one who won’t give us the “correct” teaching. You are not infallible yourself, yet you pronounce your own dogma.
Click to expand...
Why could you not answer my simple question that is clearly laid out in scripture?
 
Hisalone said:
Why could you not answer my simple question that is clearly laid out in scripture?
Click to expand...
I answered it. The New Covenant is Gods extension of kinship to us, sealed by the blood of Jesus Christ. This covenant is renewed at every Mass with the re-presentation of the sacrifice.
 
CWBetts said:
I answered it. The New Covenant is Gods extension of kinship to us, sealed by the blood of Jesus Christ. This covenant is renewed at every Mass with the re-presentation of the sacrifice.
Click to expand...
So my scripture verses are in error?
 
Ah, Scripture verses are inerrant. However, an individual’s ‘interpretation’ of Scripture verses may be in error. (Especially if the person takes them out of context, or extrapolates, or changes the meanings of words to reflect ‘current’ interpretations, etc.) That is one reason why Christ left us a Church which could (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit) be capable of authentic interpretation of Scripture and teaching, and why St. Peter warns us against ‘individual interpretation’ of Scripture.
 
CWBetts said:
You know not of which you speak. A covenant is no simple agreement, but an extension of kinship, and an oath was always involved. A covenant also involved the invocation of a curse. For example there are times when the LORD “Swore on himself”. THat means that he would brong death upon himself if he did not fulfill his end of the deal…which He did. Which ironically opened the door for the “blessing on all nations” which was promised to Abraham. The nations listed at Pentecost were the contemporary names of the nations listed in Genesis. As for your requirements, what was the meal shared with Adam? Or Abraham? or Naoh? or David? Moses had the Passover, but what of the others? Or do those Covenants not count?
Click to expand...
No where do I say it is a simple agreement.
Why would you imply I did?
A true blood covenant is more than kinship it is as if two become one.
When I said olden days I was not specifically saying in the OT but in OT times. In Abrahams covenant we see that animals were split in two and both the Lord and Abraham passed through them. Again I am differentiating between the covenant itself and the ceremony or the ritual surrounding the covenant.

The New Covenat is one where God writes His law in our hearts by the indwelling Holy Spirit. It is through this indwelling that all will know Him. It is therefore imperative that teachers teach how one comes to know this Spirit who now is abiding in them.
 
Tantum_ergo said:
Ah, Scripture verses are inerrant. However, an individual’s ‘interpretation’ of Scripture verses may be in error. (Especially if the person takes them out of context, or extrapolates, or changes the meanings of words to reflect ‘current’ interpretations, etc.) That is one reason why Christ left us a Church which could (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit) be capable of authentic interpretation of Scripture and teaching, and why St. Peter warns us against ‘individual interpretation’ of Scripture.
Click to expand...
So if these verses are inerrant then is it right to apply them to today?
 
Hisalone said:
No where do I say it is a simple agreement.
Why would you imply I did?
A true blood covenant is more than kinship it is as if two become one.
When I said olden days I was not specifically saying in the OT but in OT times. In Abrahams covenant we see that animals were split in two and both the Lord and Abraham passed through them. Again I am differentiating between the covenant itself and the ceremony or the ritual surrounding the covenant.

The New Covenat is one where God writes His law in our hearts by the indwelling Holy Spirit. It is through this indwelling that all will know Him. It is therefore imperative that teachers teach how one comes to know this Spirit who now is abiding in them.
Click to expand...
The New Covenant is our acceptance into God’s family, signified by baptism and sealed in the Eucharist. Pretty basic theology actually.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tantum ergo forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Ah, Scripture verses are inerrant. However, an individual’s ‘interpretation’ of Scripture verses may be in error. (Especially if the person takes them out of context, or extrapolates, or changes the meanings of words to reflect ‘current’ interpretations, etc.) That is one reason why Christ left us a Church which could (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit) be capable of authentic interpretation of Scripture and teaching, and why St. Peter warns us against ‘individual interpretation’ of Scripture.
So if these verses are inerrant then is it right to apply them to today?
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what you’re trying to ask here. For example, Scripture is inerrant in, for example, God’s teachings to the Israelites on not mixing two fabric types or refraining from sexual relations etc. while a woman menstruates. . .but do you apply those to today? (note that I am carefully not addressing the Jewish dietary proscriptions which, of course, St. Peter pronounced abrogated in his vision of seeing all foods as ‘clean.’)

Those versus from Leviticus are inerrant. Is it right to apply them to today? If so, do you follow them? If no, why not?
 
Tantum_ergo said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tantum ergo forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Ah, Scripture verses are inerrant. However, an individual’s ‘interpretation’ of Scripture verses may be in error. (Especially if the person takes them out of context, or extrapolates, or changes the meanings of words to reflect ‘current’ interpretations, etc.) That is one reason why Christ left us a Church which could (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit) be capable of authentic interpretation of Scripture and teaching, and why St. Peter warns us against ‘individual interpretation’ of Scripture.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to ask here. For example, Scripture is inerrant in, for example, God’s teachings to the Israelites on not mixing two fabric types or refraining from sexual relations etc. while a woman menstruates. . .but do you apply those to today? (note that I am carefully not addressing the Jewish dietary proscriptions which, of course, St. Peter pronounced abrogated in his vision of seeing all foods as ‘clean.’)

Those versus from Leviticus are inerrant. Is it right to apply them to today? If so, do you follow them? If no, why not?
Click to expand...
We are discussing the NewCovenant I used Jerimiah 31:31-34 and Hebrews 8:8-12.
do these verses appply to today?
 
CWBetts said:
Your interpretation is in error because you do not interpret in the light of Tradition handed down by the Apostles
Click to expand...
Is Jer 31 and Hebrews 8 in fact the New Covenant and if it is not then what are these verses?
 
Hisalone said:
Is Jer 31 and Hebrews 8 in fact the New Covenant and if it is not then what are these verses?
Click to expand...
Our debate is over. I refuse to waste my time with someone who refuses to look beyond surface reading of the Scriptures.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top