The New Covenant


I, prior to this thread, agreed to stop posting due to my being under constant attack, but I feel lead to say something in relation to The Difference in dispensations as they relate the different covenants and their meaning to the Body of Christ. Heres the thing, 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. Our stewardship, as those under the New Covenant, is to walk under the control of the Holy Spirit. By observing the Old Testament Sacraments catholics do, you are saying that what Jesus is giving you under the New Covenant is not good enough or that you are getting something from doing that that God is not giving you by living under the control of the Holy Spirit. You need to seriously evaluate your actions and belief system. Dabbling in covenants is not something to be taken lightly. The word “Torah” literally means teaching, so yes it is useful in the learning of different messages the Old Testament has to offer, however it does not apply to us in the sense of Redemption or in our stewardship useful to glorify God. Please people, take heed to the things im saying, for I say them not with the intent to dishearten or to judge, but with a genuine heart for people that are being mislead into believing that sacraments and OT principalities are able to give them more than what God is giving you right now. Please take what I say into consideration. I am still learning as you are and hope to grow in the understanding of Gods will in my and the rest of The Body of Christ’s life as I age. God Bless You all.



Nobody has anything to say?


YOU are the one who needs to seriously evaluate your actions and belief system. Dabbling in covenants is not something to be taken lightly. We choose to follow what Jesus taught the apostles and the Early Church Fathers. You have no authority whatsoever.


You seem really concerned and sincere, actually.

What is James refering to in chapter 2, verse 27?



I guess since the Ten Commandments are part of the Mosaic law we can simply throw it out? If not, why not? Are you saying that there are still parts of the Mosaic law that we can keep or do we have to throw it all out, like the Commandments?

Btw, it would be helpful if you would break your post up. That is not easy to read. Thank you. :slight_smile:


Yep, Sabda, that would seem to be the the assertion of his claim.

What all too many ignore is that except for what Christ abrogated, the OT is still binding. In fact, when Christ, the apostles and disciples talk of Scripture, they are NOT talking about the NT (it had yet to be written). They are referring to OT Scripture as found in the Septuagint (then the most widely used version of the Torah, Prophets and Wisdom literature).


Well, if the law is completed or ended, we can use statues and images with no problem, right?



If you have studied the New testament, you would discover that Jesus did away with the Old Testament through his death on the cross. Begin with Hebrews 9:15, Jesus is described as the “Mediator of the new covenant”. In vs.16-17., "For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of a testator.

  1. “For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives.”

Therefore, what was contained in the Old testament i not binding on Christians. As for the Ten Commandments, as written they too are done away wit, but Christ preached on different subjects that would be related to the Ten Commandments, i.e., covetness equates to adultry. Christ, in His teachings, spoke on a series of marality issues. What He taught is as binding as if the Father had spoken them, don’t you think? The O.T. is good for an understanding of the why and how of the New Testament and prophecy fulfillment. If we were to continue following the O.T., we should be burning animal sacrifices to God, not offering smbolic sacrifices, i.e., through communion. :wave:


More specifically, Jesus boiled down the Decalogue into two statements: love God, and love thy neighbor. They cover all the ground of the Commandments and more – and transform the very spirit of the Law. No more is it ‘don’t do that’, but do this – an exhortation to do good instead of a command to avoid doing evil. It’s an important difference.

Also, NP, don’t let the haters grind you down – every time they lash out at you, you have won :wink:


Actually, I think that where you are running into difficulty is that your syllogism is faulty. The conclusion you infer is based on mis-perception. You would do well to broaden your “new perspective.” Then perhaps you can change your handle to “NewParadigm”:smiley:



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.


Dude, what version are you using? The “New Catholic Apostate Version?”:smiley:

There ain’t no verse 27 in James 2. Perhaps you mean verse 26?:whistle:



I’m sure your aware that Jesus Christ specifically stated in Matt 5:17 that he came to FULFILL the LAW and NOT to ABOLISH it. The law was not completely done away with.

If we were to continue following the O.T., we should be burning animal sacrifices to God, not offering symbolic sacrifices, i.e., through communion.

The animal sacrifices in the Old Testament were a foreshadowing of the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. No we don’t have to continue sacrificing animals, in fact no one, not even the Jews, have to do that for Christ fulfilled the sacrificial requirement on the cross.

Malachi 1 states

10 Oh, that one among you would shut the temple gates to keep you from kindling fire on my altar in vain! I have no pleasure in you, says the LORD of hosts; neither will I accept any sacrifice from your hands,
11 For from the rising of the sun, even to its setting, my name is great among the nations; And everywhere they bring sacrifice to my name, and a pure offering; For great is my name among the nations, says the LORD of hosts.

This is a prophecy. Has this come true and if so how? Another thing to note is that Jesus talked about “offering your gift on the altar” in Matt 5. Altar’s are meant for sacrifices.



The sacraments that Catholics partake in are but those instituted by Jesus as proscribed to the Church through His apostles. It has been this way for 2000 years. Some late-comer has convinced you that this is somehow wrong.


Actually as I understand it the primary reason the Jews stopped the sacrifices was because there was no longer (since 70 CE) a Temple in which to do it. There is a yeshiva in Israel that trains men of the priestly lineage to be prepared to resume those sacrifices if the Temple is ever rebuilt

Now this is not to say that if the Temple were rebuilt tomorrow all the Jews in the world would be demanding a return to animal sacrifices. We live in a different time. But the Jews do not view Jesus as the reason they stopped doing animal sacrifices.


No they may not but we as Christians believe that Jesus’ sacrifice is a perfect sacrifice which spans all time and therefore animal sacrifices are not needed. And since we believe Jesus is the Savior of the world than there is no need for any kind of animalistic sacrifice. We believe that people need to join Christ’s Church so they can participate in the one true sacrifice.

Obviously those who are not Christian will disagree but this is the Catholic Christian belief. :slight_smile:


But the reason the temple was destroyed was that God no longer needed it. Just like the OT Ark of the Covenant. The Ark was no longer necessary as a vehicle for God to speak to his people. And the temple was no longer needed for sacrifices.

Of course the Jews don’t believe this. If they did, they’d be Christians. :slight_smile:


The destruction of the Temple was actually prophesied.


Doh! :banghead:

Sorry! Chapter 1, verse 27. Verse 26, too.

Don’t forget to read the post I was responding to in order to see what my question is looking for.



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

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

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit