New Covenant only for Jews?

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Truth7t7

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2014
11,977
3,764
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
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
The Marriage Supper will take place in the "Eternal Kingdom" its not basic communion in a Church as you suggest

You can't participate in the Marriage Supper on this earth, it's future that takes place in the eternal kingdom at the Lord's table

Yes Roman Catholicism falsely believes and teaches that it has the only magic in town to turn the wine into blood, and bread into flesh of the Lord transubstantiation, they have millions of followers duped, hopefully your not one if them

Matthew 26:29KJV
29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

Luke 22:29-30KJV
29 And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;
30 That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Revelation 19:9KJV
9 And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: covenantee

Davy

Well-Known Member
Feb 11, 2018
13,444
2,791
113
Southeastern U.S.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
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).
Your whole basis is a false interpretation from Judaizers and false Jews, against Christ.

If The New Covenant did not become IN EFFECT at Christ's resurrection, then there would be no such thing as the CHRISTIAN CHURCH! That also means, NO offer of Salvation through Christ's Blood shed upon His cross!

So why don't you take your FALSE TALMUDIC BLASPHEMY BACK TO THE "SYNAGOGUE OF SATAN" where you got it from!!!
 

Brakelite

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2020
9,900
7,171
113
Melbourne
brakelite.wordpress.com
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
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 . . .
Many miracles have been ascribed to Patrick by the traditional stories which grew up. Two or three will suffice to show the difference between the miraculous hero of the fanatical fiction and the real Patrick. The Celtic Patrick reached Ireland in an ordinary way. The fictitious Patrick, in order to provide passage for a leper when there was no place on the boat, threw his portable stone altar into the sea. The stone did not go to the bottom, nor was it outdistanced by the boat, but it floated around the boat with the leper on it until it reached Ireland.
In order to connect this great man with the papal see, it was related: “Sleep came over the inhabitants of Rome, so that Patrick brought away as much as he wanted of the relics. Afterward those relics were taken to Armagh by the counsel of God and the counsel of the men of Ireland. What was brought then was three hundred and threescore and five relics, together with the relics of Paul and Peter and Lawrence and Stephen, and many others. And a sheet was there with Christ’s blood [thereon] and with the hair of Mary the Virgin.
Historian Dr. Killen refutes this story by declaring: He (Patrick) never mentions either Rome or the pope or hints that he was in any way connected with the ecclesiastical capital of Italy. He recognizes no other authority but that of the word of God. .. When Palladius arrived in the country, it was not to be expected that he would receive a very hearty welcome from the Irish apostle. If he was sent by [Pope] Celestine to the native Christians to be their primate or archbishop, no wonder that stouthearted Patrick refused to bow his neck to any such yoke of bondage.”
About two hundred years after Patrick, papal authors began to tell of a certain Palladius, who was sent in 430 by this same Pope Celestine as a bishop to the Irish. They all admit, however, that he stayed only a short time in Ireland and was compelled to withdraw because of the disrespect which was shown him.
One more of the many legendary miracles which sprang from the credulity and tradition of Rome is here repeated. “He went to Rome to have [ecclesiastical] orders given him; and Caelestinus, abbot of Rome, he it is that read orders over him, Gemanus and Amatho, king of the Romans, being present with them. .. And when the orders were a reading out, the three choirs mutually responded, namely the choir of the household of heaven, and the choir of the Romans, and the choir of the children from the wood of Fochlad. This is what all sang: ‘All we Irish beseech thee, holy Patrick, to come and walk among us and to free us.’” (Whitley Stokes) It is doubtful whether the choirs in heaven would accept this representation that they were Irish.

One is struck by the absence of any reference to Patrick in the Ecclesiastical History of England written by that fervent follower of the Vatican, the Englishman Bede, who lived about two hundred years after the death of the apostle to Ireland. That history remains today the well from which many draw who would write on Anglo-Saxon England. Bede had access to the archives of Rome. He was well acquainted with the renowned Celtic missionaries who were the products of the schools of Patrick. He also emphasizes the profound differences between the Celtic and Roman Churches which brought about bitter controversies between kings and bishops. Though a great collector of facts, Bede makes no reference whatever to Patrick. The reason apparently is that, when this historian wrote, the Papacy had not yet made up its mind to claim Patrick.
 
  • Like
Reactions: covenantee

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
21,657
3,592
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
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.
We're on page 41 of this thread. I have given you several verbatim quotes that you have completely rejected.
Of you’re going to demand one – then answer some of the ones I ALREADY gave you, Einstein.

You’ve used up all of your Brownie points . . .
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
21,657
3,592
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Where in Scripture is the Lord's Supper identified as a wedding feast?
Again, with the ignorance.
Try cracking open a BIBLE once in a while . . .

Rev.19:7-9
Let us rejoice and exult
and give him the glory,
for the marriage of the Lamb has come,
and his Bride has made herself ready;
8 it was granted her to clothe herself
with fine linen, bright and pure”—
for the fine linen is the righteous deeds of the saints.

9 And the angel said to me, “Write this: Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb.” And he said to me, “These are the true words of God.” 10 Then I fell down at his feet to worship him, but he said to me, “You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God.” For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.


Sorry for butting in, @Philip James.
His nonsense was just too juicy to resist . . .
 
  • Like
Reactions: Philip James

covenantee

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2022
6,421
2,744
113
73
Canada
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Again, with the ignorance.
Try cracking open a BIBLE once in a while . . .

Rev.19:7-9
Let us rejoice and exult
and give him the glory,
for the marriage of the Lamb has come,
and his Bride has made herself ready;
8 it was granted her to clothe herself
with fine linen, bright and pure”—
for the fine linen is the righteous deeds of the saints.

9 And the angel said to me, “Write this: Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb.” And he said to me, “These are the true words of God.” 10 Then I fell down at his feet to worship him, but he said to me, “You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God.” For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.


Sorry for butting in, @Philip James.
His nonsense was just too juicy to resist . . .
Thanks for confirmation that a papist has no idea what the Lord's Supper is.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
21,657
3,592
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
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.
In post #824, YOU make the asinine claim that the "verbatim quote" from Ignatius of Antioch that I gave you doesn't mention the Pope:
"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."


I then had to educate you on the fact that he DID. That's the "See" he was talking about, Einstein.
The "See of Rome" is the POPE.
So, your credibility - or LACK thereof has been exposed yet again . . .
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
21,657
3,592
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Thanks for confirmation that a papist has no idea what the Lord's Supper is.
Then, before I DESTROY tthat point with Scripture - explain in detail what the "Lan's Supper" is.
I'll waith right here for your detaioled response . . .
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
21,657
3,592
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
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.
Moving the goalposts again?
As a faithfulk Catholic - Ignatius understood that the OFFICE of the Holy See - and not the individual occupying that office is what is MOST important.

More proof that it is not the man we follow, but the HOLY SPIRIT that guides him (John 16:12-15).
Many miracles have been ascribed to Patrick by the traditional stories which grew up. Two or three will suffice to show the difference between the miraculous hero of the fanatical fiction and the real Patrick. The Celtic Patrick reached Ireland in an ordinary way. The fictitious Patrick, in order to provide passage for a leper when there was no place on the boat, threw his portable stone altar into the sea. The stone did not go to the bottom, nor was it outdistanced by the boat, but it floated around the boat with the leper on it until it reached Ireland.
In order to connect this great man with the papal see, it was related: “Sleep came over the inhabitants of Rome, so that Patrick brought away as much as he wanted of the relics. Afterward those relics were taken to Armagh by the counsel of God and the counsel of the men of Ireland. What was brought then was three hundred and threescore and five relics, together with the relics of Paul and Peter and Lawrence and Stephen, and many others. And a sheet was there with Christ’s blood [thereon] and with the hair of Mary the Virgin.
Historian Dr. Killen refutes this story by declaring: He (Patrick) never mentions either Rome or the pope or hints that he was in any way connected with the ecclesiastical capital of Italy. He recognizes no other authority but that of the word of God. .. When Palladius arrived in the country, it was not to be expected that he would receive a very hearty welcome from the Irish apostle. If he was sent by [Pope] Celestine to the native Christians to be their primate or archbishop, no wonder that stouthearted Patrick refused to bow his neck to any such yoke of bondage.”
About two hundred years after Patrick, papal authors began to tell of a certain Palladius, who was sent in 430 by this same Pope Celestine as a bishop to the Irish. They all admit, however, that he stayed only a short time in Ireland and was compelled to withdraw because of the disrespect which was shown him.
One more of the many legendary miracles which sprang from the credulity and tradition of Rome is here repeated. “He went to Rome to have [ecclesiastical] orders given him; and Caelestinus, abbot of Rome, he it is that read orders over him, Gemanus and Amatho, king of the Romans, being present with them. .. And when the orders were a reading out, the three choirs mutually responded, namely the choir of the household of heaven, and the choir of the Romans, and the choir of the children from the wood of Fochlad. This is what all sang: ‘All we Irish beseech thee, holy Patrick, to come and walk among us and to free us.’” (Whitley Stokes) It is doubtful whether the choirs in heaven would accept this representation that they were Irish.

One is struck by the absence of any reference to Patrick in the Ecclesiastical History of England written by that fervent follower of the Vatican, the Englishman Bede, who lived about two hundred years after the death of the apostle to Ireland. That history remains today the well from which many draw who would write on Anglo-Saxon England. Bede had access to the archives of Rome. He was well acquainted with the renowned Celtic missionaries who were the products of the schools of Patrick. He also emphasizes the profound differences between the Celtic and Roman Churches which brought about bitter controversies between kings and bishops. Though a great collector of facts, Bede makes no reference whatever to Patrick. The reason apparently is that, when this historian wrote, the Papacy had not yet made up its mind to claim Patrick.
Another DODGE?

I have asked you THREE times now to substantiate your idiotic fallacy that the Catholic Church ONLY wanted the Bible in Latin so nobody could read it.
The fact that you redirected this entire conversation to frevisionist fairytales about St. Patrick shows your utter desperation.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
21,657
3,592
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
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.
EASY.
It's ALL in Scripture and in the writings of the Early Church.

If Peter WASN'T the Pope and in charge -
a. Tell me WHY Jesus singled out Peter when He gave him the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven (Matt. 16:18-19) if did not put him in charge.

b. Tell me WHY Jesus asked Peter and Peter alone to feed His lambs and tend His sheep (John 21:15-19) if did not put him in charge.

c. Tell me WHY Jesus said that He prayed for Peter ALONE to strengthen the others and bring them back to faith (Luke 22:31-32) if did not put him in charge.

d. Tell me WHY Peter called "Protos" (First) in the Gospel (Matt. 10:2) if he was not in charge??

e. Tell me WHY Peter's name occurs first in all lists of apostles (Matt. 10:2; Mk 3:16; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13) if he was not in charge??

f. Tell me WHY Peter is specified by an angel as the leader and representative of the apostles (Mark 16:7) if he was not in charge??

g. Tell me WHY Peter takes the lead in calling for a successor for Judas (Acts 1:22) if He was not in charge??

h. Tell me WHY Peter is the first person to speak (and only one recorded) after Pentecost, making him the first Christian to preach the Gospel in the Church (Acts 2:14-36) if he was not in charge??

i. Tell me WHY Peter works the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man (Acts 3:6-12) if he was not in charge??

j. Tell me WHY Peter utters the first anathema (Ananias and Sapphira) affirmed by God (Acts 5:2-11) if He was not in charge??

k. Tell me WHY Peter is the first person after Christ to raise the dead (Acts 9:40) if he was not in charge??

l. Tell me WHY Cornelius is told by an angel to seek out Peter for instruction in Christianity (Acts 10:1-6) if he was not in charge??

m. Tell me WHY Peter's name is mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together if He was not in charge??

His name is mentioned 191 times (162 as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon and 6 as Cephas). John is the next with only 48 mentions, and Peter is present 50 percent of the time we find John in the Bible.


The Early Church recognized the Papacy (Chair of Peter).
Here are their "verbatim" quotes . . .

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
… 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]).
The blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? "Behold, we have left all and have followed you" [Matt. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28] (Who is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).

Tertullian
The Lord said to Peter, "On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven" [Matt. 16:18-19]. ... Upon YOU, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to YOU the keys, not to the Church; and whatever YOU shall have bound or YOU shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).

Letter of Clement to James
Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church
, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D, 221]).

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]).

Cyril of Jerusalem
In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9 ;3 2-3 4] (Catechetical Lectures 17;27 [A.D. 350]).



Please respond to ALL of these "verbatim" quotes and Scripture verses - with "verbatim" quotes and Scripture.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
21,657
3,592
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The catholic church is who they think the ME is . They think if one accepts not that church , they have denied CHRIST himself .
NEVER FOLLOW that harlot my friend . Dont you ever go in the direction of the CC . EVER .
This, coming fom the same "genius" who doesn't know where the Canon of Scripture came from.
STILL waiting afteer 6 months for the answer which will probably never come . . .
 

amigo de christo

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2020
29,957
50,763
113
53
San angelo
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
This, coming fom the same "genius" who doesn't know where the Canon of Scripture came from.
STILL waiting afteer 6 months for the answer which will probably never come . . .
anyone can go back and read where i did answer you . You just didnt like the answer .
Just cause Rome copied the letters faithfully dont mean they are not false .
Just like the jews . They too could recopy torah faithfully , yet many of the leadership were false and GOD was angry with said leadership ,
Just like GOD is angry with that harlot the CC . Even the adventists , mormons , many protestants have a good copy of the bible .
IT DONT MEAN THEY FOLLOW CHRIST . the CC is like a tomb . It appears beautiful on the outside but within her is dead mens bones .
Just cause folks claim to follow GOD , follow CHRIST , and even cliam to support the bible , DONT MEAN THEY DO .
GOTTA TEST EM . I DID , and the CC FAILED THE TEST , as many others have as well .
 

Philip James

Well-Known Member
May 4, 2018
4,281
3,101
113
Brandon
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Where in Scripture is the Lord's Supper identified as a wedding feast?

Hello covantee,

I already gave you a start with the quote from St.Paul.. you yourself have posted a good one 'this cup is the new covenant..'

we have the 2000 year old living witness of the Church in Rome, the Church in Alexandria and the Church in Constantinople..

there is the parables of the banquet of course..

and the theme of God wedding His people throughout the bible..

perhaps first alluded to when Eve was taken from Adam's side as a foreshadowing of the Church being taken from Christ's side, the Blood and Water poring out, the two great sacraments of the Church; Baptism and Eucharist.

'and there are 3 that give witness, The Spirit and the Water and the Blood'


Here's some more from St Paul:

The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?

Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.



And from Jesus:

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.

For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.



Pax et Bonum
 
Status
Not open for further replies.