New Covenant only for Jews?

[Truth7t7]

Thanks for the laugh . . .
Why do you even bother postng without doing your homework??

About a hundred years later - Origen, who lived in the late-SECOND to the mid-THRID century was part of the Catholic Church.

Ummmm, in case nobody has informed you – there was only ONE Church at the timer. This is centuries BEFORE the East-Wes- schism and the start of the endless splintering of Protestantism.

As to your moronic and historically -bankrupt claim that the Catholic Church didn’t dome about until the FOURTH century – it’s time to take you out to the historical woodshed – AGAIN . . .

From the Early Church – we first read that the NAME of the Church was “The Catholic Church” in a letter from Ignatius of Antioch. Ignatius, a 1ST CENTURY Bishop wrote the following on his way to Rome to be martyred:

Ignatius of Antioch
Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the CATHOLIC CHURCH (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 107]).

In like manner let everyone respect the deacons as they would respect Jesus Christ, and just as they respect the bishop as a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and college of the apostles. WITHOUT THESE, IT CANNOT BE CALLED A CHURCH. I am confident that you accept this, for I have received the exemplar of your love and have it with me in the person of your bishop. His very demeanor is a great lesson and his meekness is his strength. I believe that even the godless do respect him (Letter to the Trallians 3:1-2 [A. D. 107]).

Bishops as “Father”, Priests, Deacons and the EUCHARIST.
Gee – even WITHOYT the name, “the Catholic Church” – WHICH Church does this sound like?

Take your time . . .

Your claim the "Roman" Catholic Church Being The Hierarcy of Christianty is "Laughable" as you continue to use the fake news word "splintering"

The Church was established in Jerusalem and Syria long before Rome

The only reason Rome exalted its seat is because of Roman Emperor Constantine created the "State Church" in Rome

Try studying the 1st Nicean council 325AD called by Emperor Constatine, 1800 bishops were invited all expenses paid, and only 318 showed up

The true Christian Church existed outside of Rome, and Emperor Constantine's "State Church", the true Church was and has been persecuted by this Roman State Church

Jesus Is The Lord

 

[BreadOfLife]

If he was Marianized, why did your apostate papacy exhume and burn his bones?

Answer: Because he was one of the earliest to accurately recognize and proclaim the apostate papacy as antichrist.

You've proved nothing except that the Douay-Rheims did not appear until almost two centuries after Wycliffe's Bible.

Try to stay on topic.

Thank God for John Wycliffe and the Reformation.

Earliest??

And in your usual idiotic and historically-bankrupt fashion - your ignorance of history is your downfall
Time for another History Lesson, son . . .

After succumbing to the Montanist Heresy, Tertullian, wrote a treatise called. Di Pudicitia m in which he excoriated the Papacy. By MY calculations – this was about ELEVEN HUNDRED years before John Wycliffe was born.

And about 300 years before he was born – the East-West schism came about, largely because of a rejection of the Papacy.

WHY do you bother posting when you obviously haven’t done your homework??
I'm enbarrassed for you . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Your claim the "Roman" Catholic Church Being The Hierarcy of Christianty is "Laughable" as you continue to use the fake news word "splintering"
"Fakenews"??
The Church was established in Jerusalem and Syria long before Rome

The only reason Rome exalted its seat is because of Roman Emperor Constantine created the "State Church" in Rome

Try studying the 1st Nicean council 325AD called by Emperor Constatine, 1800 bishops were invited all expenses paid, and only 318 showed up

The true Christian Church existed outside of Rome, and it's emperor Constantine's "State Church", the true Church was and has been persecuted by this Roman State Church

Jesus Is The Lord

AGAIN – it’s a mystery to me why you post here without doing your homework . . .

The Church was being planted by the Apostles and their successors. Rome eventually became the headquarters of the Church after Paul and Peter came to establish it and were martyred there. This was in the FIRST CENTURY.

The idea that is was the “Superior” diocese is supported by the writings of the Early Church Fathers .
By the way, Einstein - The following testimonies were written LONG before Constantine was even born. . .

Ignatius of Antioch
You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).

Irenaeus
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. WITH THAT CHURCH, BECAUSE OF ITS SUPERIOR ORIGIN, ALL THE CHURCHES MUST AGREE, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).

Cyprian
With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the CHAIR OF PETER AND TO THE PRINCIPAL CHURCH [AT ROME], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).

If someone does not hold fast to THIS UNITY OF PETER, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert THE CHAIR OF PETER upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [A.D. 251]).

 

[covenantee]

Thanks for the laugh . . .
Why do you even bother postng without doing your homework??

About a hundred years later - Origen, who lived in the late-SECOND to the mid-THRID century was part of the Catholic Church.

Ummmm, in case nobody has informed you – there was only ONE Church at the timer. This is centuries BEFORE the East-Wes- schism and the start of the endless splintering of Protestantism.

As to your moronic and historically -bankrupt claim that the Catholic Church didn’t dome about until the FOURTH century – it’s time to take you out to the historical woodshed – AGAIN . . .

From the Early Church – we first read that the NAME of the Church was “The Catholic Church” in a letter from Ignatius of Antioch. Ignatius, a 1ST CENTURY Bishop wrote the following on his way to Rome to be martyred:

Ignatius of Antioch
Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the CATHOLIC CHURCH (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 107]).

In like manner let everyone respect the deacons as they would respect Jesus Christ, and just as they respect the bishop as a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and college of the apostles. WITHOUT THESE, IT CANNOT BE CALLED A CHURCH. I am confident that you accept this, for I have received the exemplar of your love and have it with me in the person of your bishop. His very demeanor is a great lesson and his meekness is his strength. I believe that even the godless do respect him (Letter to the Trallians 3:1-2 [A. D. 107]).

Bishops as “Father”, Priests, Deacons and the EUCHARIST.
Gee – even WITHOYT the name, “the Catholic Church” – WHICH Church does this sound like?

Take your time . . .

If Ignatius had been an institutional Catholic as you claim, he would not have neglected to mention the pope in his letter.

He never mentions the pope.

He was not the institutional Catholic that you claim.

He was not an institutional Catholic at all.

 

[covenantee]

Earliest??

And in your usual idiotic and historically-bankrupt fashion - your ignorance of history is your downfall
Time for another History Lesson, son . . .

After succumbing to the Montanist Heresy, Tertullian, wrote a treatise called. Di Pudicitia m in which he excoriated the Papacy. By MY calculations – this was about ELEVEN HUNDRED years before John Wycliffe was born.

And about 300 years before he was born – the East-West schism came about, largely because of a rejection of the Papacy.

WHY do you bother posting when you obviously haven’t done your homework??
I'm enbarrassed for you . . .

Post the verbatim excerpt from the treatise in which Tertullian explicitly refers to the papacy as antichrist.

Take your time.

Try not to look like a fool.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Fascinating. I know of this history. Your teachers however had it a little wrong. Whitby, run by a devout woman named Hilda, was the product of the Celtic church, not the Catholic Church. Hilda, along with her spiritual forbears such as Columba, Aiden, and even Patrick, would have nothing to do with papal supremacy and any claimed authority over the spiritual consciences of others. The scriptures had been faithfully copied into the indigenous languages of numerous nations, including England, before Caedmon. What he did that was different, was to put the truths of scripture into music. While Aiden and others preached the gospel, Caedmon sang it.
The terms, monks and monasteries did not have the nuance of catholicism that they have today. Those training centers for ministers of the gospel were established by Celtic Christians having no connection to Rome. Whitby was but one of many. There was Lindisfarne, Iona, Melrose, and Bangor in Wales, among others. Claiming them as Catholic is as spurious as claims that Patrick was Catholic. Christianity in Britain existed several centuries before Augustine discovered a thriving church there.

Thanks for dodging the issue - with a response that has absolutely NOTHING to do with your original fallacy that the Catholic Church ONLY wanted the Bible in Latin so nobody could read it.

Prior to the 15th century with the invention of the printing press, Bible weren't readily-available because they were HAND-COPIED and took YEARS to transcribe.

As to your repeated nonsense about men like St. Patrick NOT being Catholic – time for a History Lesson . . .

Patrick, after spending time at St. Martin's monastery at Tours, came under the tutelage and guidance of another Catholic, St. Germain. Under Germain’s guidance, Patrick was ordained to the priesthood.

When Germain was commissioned by the Holy See y go to Britain to fight against the Pelagian Heresy, he took Patrick with him.

ALL of the Churches around the world were subject to the Primacy of the Church in Rome. The only sects that didn’t comply were those in HERESY, like the Pelagian - YOUR revisionism, notwithstanding . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

If Ignatius had been an institutional Catholic as you claim, he would not have neglected to mention the pope in his letter.
He never mentions the pope.

He was not the institutional Catholic that you claim.

He was not an institutional Catholic at all.

I see your ignorance is hard at work - again . . .

Yhe "See of Romr" that Ignatius is referring to is the Bishop of Rome.
In other words, the POPE, Einstein.

And, by the way - the Pope DOESN'T need to be mentoned in every Catholic document.

As for not being an "institutional" Catholic - I suppose you meean he was not part of the hierarchy.
Ummmmm, he was a BISHOP, Einsrein - a successor to the Apostles themselves. In fact, he was sppointed Bishop of Antion, BY Peter.
THAT's why he wrote about Bishops, priests, deacons, the CATHOLIC Church - and the EUCHARIUST, which YOU reject/

Do your HOMEWORK dude . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Post the verbatim excerpt from the treatise in which Tertullian explicitly refers to the papacy as antichrist.

Take your time.

Try not to look like a fool.

First of all - I've givenyou "verbatim" quotes ALL through this thread - and YOU have rejected them in your usual cowatrdly fashion.

Secondly - I never made the claim that Tertullian called the Pope an "AbtiC-hrist."
I said that Tertullian EXCORIATED the papac on his letter Di Puducutuay,
.
That doesan't even rhyme with "Anti-C-hrist"

 

[Philip James]

John 5:39
Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

You search the scriptures, because you think you have eternal life through them; even they testify on my behalf.

But you do not want to come to me to have life.




All are welcome to come to the wedding Feast of the Lamb of God!

Pax et Bonum

 

[covenantee]

First of all - I've givenyou "verbatim" quotes ALL through this thread - and YOU have rejected them in your usual cowatrdly fashion.

Secondly - I never made the claim that Tertullian called the Pope an "AbtiC-hrist."
I said that Tertullian EXCORIATED the papac on his letter Di Puducutuay,
.
That doesan't even rhyme with "Anti-C-hrist"

I advised you not to look like a fool.

You failed.

I said that Wycliffe was one of the earliest to declare the papacy to be antichrist.

You shot your mouth off in post 822 attempting to claim that Tertullian preceded him in that declaration.

I requested a verbatim quote, which of course you were unable to provide, because Tertullian never made such a claim.

It's unfortunate that basic kindergarten literacy isn't a requisite on this forum.

And kindergartners know what a spell checker is.

You fail.

Like a fool.

 

[covenantee]

I see your ignorance is hard at work - again . . .

Yhe "See of Romr" that Ignatius is referring to is the Bishop of Rome.
In other words, the POPE, Einstein.

And, by the way - the Pope DOESN'T need to be mentoned in every Catholic document.

As for not being an "institutional" Catholic - I suppose you meean he was not part of the hierarchy.
Ummmmm, he was a BISHOP, Einsrein - a successor to the Apostles themselves. In fact, he was sppointed Bishop of Antion, BY Peter.
THAT's why he wrote about Bishops, priests, deacons, the CATHOLIC Church - and the EUCHARIUST, which YOU reject/

Do your HOMEWORK dude . . .

Had Ignatius forgotten the name of the active pope/bishop of Rome when he wrote his letter? He must have had a very poor memory.

Perhaps you can enlighten us (but I doubt it). Who was the active pope/bishop of Rome when Ignatius wrote his letter?

When did Ignatius ever mention the name of the active pope/bishop of Rome when he wrote any of his letters?

When did Ignatius acknowledge the bishop of Rome as the one and only pope? (Hint: Never)

When did the RC church acknowledge the bishop of Rome as the one and only pope? (Hint: Not until Leo, 440-461).

Sources and verbatim quotes, please.

I can wait for as long as it takes.

 

[covenantee]

But you do not want to come to me to have life.

Who do you think is "me"?

 

[Truth7t7]

You search the scriptures, because you think you have eternal life through them; even they testify on my behalf.

But you do not want to come to me to have life.

View attachment 28431


All are welcome to come to the wedding Feast of the Lamb of God!

Pax et Bonum

The wedding feast isn't a catholic priest at a communion table, smiles!

 

[Philip James]

Who do you think is "me"?

Hello covenantee,

The very one Who spoke those words, the One born of Mary, who suffered, was crucified and died, the One who rose again and now lives forever:

Jesus Christ

You too! Are welcome to come to the wedding Feast of the Lamb of God!

Pax et Bonum

 

[Philip James]

The wedding feast isn't a catholic priest at a communion table, smiles!

hello Truth7t7,

The wedding Feast is an eternal reality that we participate in, in union with the whole Church everywhere and everytime, as we celebrate the union of the Groom and His bride..

"For this reason a man shall leave (his) father and (his) mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh."

This is a great mystery, but I speak in reference to Christ and the church.

You too! Are welcome to come to the wedding feast of the Lamb of God!

Pax et Bonum

 

[covenantee]

Hello covenantee,

The very one Who spoke those words, the One born of Mary, who suffered, was crucified and died, the One who rose again and now lives forever:

Jesus Christ

You too! Are welcome to come to the wedding Feast of the Lamb of God!

Pax et Bonum

Of course.

He tells us that He is the One of Whom the inspired Scriptures speak.

Not the uninspired edicts of a church.

 

[covenantee]

Hello covenantee,

The very one Who spoke those words, the One born of Mary, who suffered, was crucified and died, the One who rose again and now lives forever:

Jesus Christ

You too! Are welcome to come to the wedding Feast of the Lamb of God!

Pax et Bonum

Where in Scripture is the Lord's Supper identified as a wedding feast?

 

[RR144]

Why does it say the "New Covenant" Jesus made is only for the Jews?

Hebrews 8:8 - But God found fault with the people and said: “The days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah.

This is a quote from Jer. 31:31-34, which reads: “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: . . . this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”

The New Covenant has not been made as yet. It states clearly in v. 33 that this covenant is to be made with the nation or house of Israel, which includes both the ten tribes and the two tribes (Israel and Judah, v. 31). It is to be made “after those days,” that is, after the Diaspora and after the completion of the regathering of the Jews to their homeland, Eretz Israel, which we see still progressing, in their return from Russia (“the land of the north”) and other countries (Jer. 16:14-16). Those Christians who say the New Covenant has already been made are mistaken. The covenant made with Abraham (Gen. 12:3; 22:16-18), to which the Law Covenant was added 430 years later (Ex. 12:40, 41), has continued in force (compare Gal. 3:17; 4:22-31).

 

[covenantee]

The New Covenant has not been made as yet.

Matthew 26
26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.”
27 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you.
28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Do you think that Jesus extended an unmade covenant to His disciples?

How could an unmade covenant result in the remission of sins?

If there is no New Covenant, then there is no Blood, because Jesus declared that His Blood is the Blood of the New Covenant.

But there is.

If there is no Blood, then there is no remission of sins, because Jesus declared that His Blood is shed for many for the remission of sins.

But there is.

The New Covenant was fully and perfectly established at Calvary, written in the shed Blood of the Spotless Lamb of God.

2 Corinthians 3
5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as being from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God, 6 who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

And Scripture assures us, the Church of God, that we experience, and are ministers of, that New Covenant.

 

[Illuminator]

If Ignatius had been an institutional Catholic as you claim, he would not have neglected to mention the pope in his letter.

He never mentions the pope.

He was not the institutional Catholic that you claim.

He was not an institutional Catholic at all.

The evidence from his 7 proven genuine letters reveals the opposite of your claim.
In just one quote, Ignatius mentions "bishops" 5 times. That does not and cannot exclude the Bishop of Rome.

"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. [] Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. [] Whatsoever [the bishop] shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid."​

​

I'm sorry you have nothing to do with his Church and have no bishops.

The Anglican J.B. Lightfoot, no great fan of Catholic (whom he terms “Romanists”) nevertheless concedes that “throughout the thirteen letters the same doctrines are maintained, the same heresies assailed, and the same theological terms employed. In this respect no difference can be traced between the two sets of epistles.” So while there may have been theological reasons (responding to the Apollinarian or Arian heresies) for the forgery of the additional 6 letters, nothing theological (between Catholics and Protestants) turns on these spurious letters. Anything that Protestants would object to in the six false letters is also found in the seven genuine letters.

In other words, the fact that the Middle Recension is authentic should give covenantee serious pause, since it disproves many Protestant theories about the nature of the early Church.


"Well, Ignatius' letters aren't inspired so I can ignore them."