Posted on 07/03/2025 5:38:42 PM PDT by Angelino97
I have just finished reading “The Old Covenant: Revoked or Not Revoked?” by Dr. Robert Sungenis. It is a study debunking the notion, now regnant in liberal theological circles, that the Old Covenant still stands side-by-side with the New Covenant.
According to this novelty, in essence, God’s “A Plan” and God’s “B Plan” are both currently pleasing to Him and both fully in effect.
Opposed to this, the Catholic Faith teaches that the Old Law — itself good, holy, and of divine origin — was a preparation for the New, and that the New Law superceded and fulfilled the Old.
Indeed, as Dr. Sungenis shows, Pope John Paul II affirmed the traditional teaching in a not-much-quoted passage of Redemptoris Mater: “Christ fulfills the divine promise and supersedes the old law.”
Years ago, I made an effort at debunking this vogue theology in an article on the Epistle to the Hebrews: A Better Testament. Dr. Sungenis quotes from Hebrews, but he does not limit himself to this, as the pilfered quotations below adequately show.
The following is a series of scriptural, patristic, and magisterial citations from “The Old Covenant: Revoked or Not Revoked?“:
Hebrews 7:18: “On the one hand, a former commandment is annulled because of its weakness and uselessness…”;
Hebrews 10:9: “Then he says, ‘Behold, I come to do your will.’ He takes away the first [covenant] to establish the second [covenant]…”;
2 Corinthians 3:14: “For to this day when they [the Jews] read the Old Covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away”;
Hebrews 8:7: “For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another”;
Colossians 2:14: “Having canceled the written code, with its decrees, that was against us and stood opposed to us; He took it away nailing it to the cross”;
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, para. 29: “…the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished…but on the gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross”;
The Catechism of the Council of Trent: “…the people, aware of the abrogation of the Mosaic Law…”;
Council of Florence: “that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic law…although they were suited to the divine worship at that time, after our Lord’s coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began”;
Council of Trent: “but not even the Jews by the very letter of the law of Moses were able to be liberated or to rise therefrom”;
Cardinal Ratzinger: “Thus the Sinai [Mosaic] Covenant is indeed superseded” (Many Religions – One Covenant, p. 70).
St. John Chrysostom: “Yet surely Paul’s object everywhere is to annul this Law….And with much reason; for it was through a fear and a horror of this that the Jews obstinately opposed grace” (Homily on Romans, 6:12); “And so while no one annuls a man’s covenant, the covenant of God after four hundred and thirty years is annulled; for if not that covenant but another instead of it bestows what is promised, then is it set aside, which is most unreasonable” (Homily on Galatians, Ch 3);
St. Augustine: “Instead of the grace of the law which has passed away, we have received the grace of the gospel which is abiding; and instead of the shadows and types of the old dispensation, the truth has come by Jesus Christ. Jeremiah also prophesied thus in God’s name: ‘Behold, the days come, says the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah…’ Observe what the prophet says, not to Gentiles, who had not been partakers in any former covenant, but to the Jewish nation. He who has given them the law by Moses, promises in place of it the New Covenant of the gospel, that they might no longer live in the oldness of the letter, but in the newness of the spirit” (Letters, 74, 4);
Justin Martyr: Now, law placed against law has abrogated that which is before it, and a covenant which comes after in like manner has put an end to the previous one; and an eternal and final law – namely, Christ – has been given to us, and the covenant is trustworthy…Have you not read…by Jeremiah, concerning this same new covenant, He thus speaks: ‘Behold, the days come,’ says the Lord, ‘that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah…’” (Dialogue with Trypho, Ch 11).
NO SALE, Jesuit son of Uranus
What exactly do you Adventists think Jesuits are?
Seventh day Adventists are brainwashed a lot. You have no idea what a Jesuit is, and you believe Jesus is the angel Michael and that Jesus entered the Holy of Holies in heaven only in 1844.
Where in the New Testament is there a single verse that explicitly commands Christians to observe the seventh-day Sabbath as a mandatory practice for salvation?
You won’t find any because the New Testament lacks any direct mandate for Christians to keep Saturday (Colossians 2:16-17 calls Sabbaths “shadows” of Christ; Romans 14:5-6 grants worship-day freedom; Acts 15:28-29 omits Sabbath for Gentiles).
Can you name a single Early Church Father or Reformation theologian, prior to Ellen G. White, who taught the Investigative Judgment beginning in 1844 or linked Daniel 8:14’s 2300 days to a heavenly sanctuary judgment?
You won’t find any as the Investigative Judgment is a 19th-century Adventist innovation, post-dating the Great Disappointment (1844). No patristic writer (e.g., Augustine, Chrysostom) or Reformer (e.g., Luther, Calvin) mentions a 1844 judgment, exposing its historical novelty. Adventists must either admit its recent origin or invent unsupported historical claims.
Since the Hebrew term ereb boqer (‘evenings and mornings’) in Daniel 8:14 mirrors Genesis 1:5’s daily cycle, and the Septuagint translates it as ‘days,’ what linguistic evidence justifies your day-for-year interpretation for the 2300 days, especially when Daniel 12:11-12 uses literal days for end-time events?
You ain’t gonna find one as The day-for-year principle (Ezekiel 4:6) is a symbolic exception, not a universal rule, and Daniel’s context supports literal days for Antiochus’ 2300-day persecution (167-164 BC, 1 Maccabees 1:41-54
If the Investigative Judgment began in 1844 to review believers’ lives for salvation, as Ellen G. White claims (The Great Controversy, p. 421-422), why does Hebrews 9:12 state Christ entered the Most Holy Place ‘once for all’ at His ascension, and how do you reconcile this with a second judgment at the Second Coming (Revelation 20:11-15) without making God’s omniscience redundant?
Can you provide a primary source from the Council of Trent (1545-1563) or any papal decree that explicitly states the Catholic Church changed the Sabbath to Sunday, as you claim, and explain why early Christian writings (e.g., Didache, c. 70-100 AD) show Sunday worship predating Trent by 1400 years?
If the 2300-year prophecy (457 BC to 1844 AD) determines the Investigative Judgment’s start, as you assert, why did no global event or divine sign mark 1844, and how do you justify adding a pre-judgment phase when Christ’s return (Matthew 25:31-46) is the sole judgment biblically described?
The 1844 date, adjusted post-Great Disappointment, lacks historical or biblical confirmation (e.g., no judgment occurred). Adding a pre-return judgment contradicts Matthew 25:31-46’s finality, exposing White’s doctrine as a logical patch to save face.
——>what linguistic evidence justifies your day-for-year interpretation for the 2300 days
The 70 weeks prophecy COMES FROM THE 2300 DAY/YEAR VISION. It is the first 490 YEARS of the 2300 YEAR vision. They both start at the same time, in the same year. Daniel was crystal clear on that point.
You have acknowledged on many occasions that Daniel’s 70 weeks is 490 LITERAL years. The 2300 days therefore must be LITERAL years, as it comes from the same vision.
Dan 8:26“The vision of the evenings and mornings that has been given you is true, but seal up the vision, for it concerns the distant future.” 27I, Daniel, was worn out. I lay exhausted for several days. Then I got up and went about the king’s business. I was appalled by the vision; it was beyond understanding.
Daniel 9:20While I was speaking and praying, confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel and making my request to the Lord my God for his holy hill— 21while I was still in prayer, Gabriel, the man I had seen in the earlier vision, came to me in swift flight about the time of the evening sacrifice. 22He instructed me and said to me, “Daniel, I have now come to give you insight and understanding. 23As soon as you began to pray, a word went out, which I have come to tell you, for you are highly esteemed. THEREFORE, CONSIDER THE WORD AND UNDERSTAND THE VISION:
There is no basis to say Daniel’s 70 week prophecy by Gabriel came to him in a vision, because it didn’t. Saying it did is a Jesuit lie. Gabriel was there to help him understand the 2300 day/year vision.
Saying there were two visions, one for the 2300 days and one for the 70 weeks, is just stupidity or a Jesuit lie. THEN saying it was a linguistic vision (whatever that means) just multiplies the stupidity factor x 10.
——>Can you name a single Early Church Father or Reformation theologian, prior to Ellen G. White, who taught the Investigative Judgment beginning in 1844 or linked Daniel 8:14’s 2300 days to a heavenly sanctuary judgment?
Nope, and same for the MOTB Sunday issue, and others. And here’s why, as I have already told you.
Daniel 12:4But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, AND SEAL THE BOOK, EVEN TO THE TIME OF THE END: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.
The time of the end begins after 1798.
Your argument, Phil, rests on a misreading of Daniel’s text, driven by Adventist tradition rather than Scripture. The two visions are distinct, the 2300 days are literal, and your 1844 link is a fabricated stretch.
I understand your commitment to your beliefs, but I urge you to test them against Scripture alone, not Adventist interpretations. White’s errors—e.g., her 1856 failed prophecy (*Testimonies for the Church*, Vol. 1, p. 131-132)—undermine her authority. Your 1844 fantasy, glued together by White’s lies, is the real stupidity—crushed by Scripture (Hebrews 9:12) and history
Your claim that Daniel 9’s 70-week prophecy “comes out of” the 2300-day prophecy and must be years, ruling out Antiochus, is a White-inspired fantasy, not Scripture. Let’s shred it:
Your biblical case is a White-driven delusion, not God’s Word.
Your claim that “every Protestant Reformer knew” the papacy was the Antichrist, deflected by Jesuit Preterism and Futurism, is a historical sham:
Your history, Phil, is a lie, forged by White to vilify the Church, not reflect truth.
Your linguistic leap from 2300 days to 2300 years unravels under scrutiny:
Your linguistic trickery, Phil, is White’s invention, not biblical exegesis.
Your argument’s logic is a tangled mess of contradictions:
Your logic, Phil, is a White-inspired fantasy, not divine reason.
Your “Jesuit lies” slur and Antichrist claims stem from Seventh-day Adventism’s demonic core, built on White’s lies:
| Adventist Error | Details | Biblical Refutation |
|---|---|---|
| False Prophecies | White’s 1856, 1844, 1845 failures (Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 1, p. 131-132). | Deuteronomy 18:22 |
| Investigative Judgment | Denies Christ’s atonement (The Great Controversy, p. 421-422). | Hebrews 9:12 |
| Sabbath Idolatry | Salvific Sabbath lacks support (The Great Controversy, p. 605-612). | Colossians 2:16-17 |
| Anti-Catholic Hatred | White’s Babylon claim (The Great Controversy, p. 50). | Matthew 16:18-19 |
| Plagiarism | White stole from authors (The White Lie by Walter Rea). | Revelation 22:18-19 |
Adventism is a satanic cult, chaining you to White’s lies and a works-based gospel.
——>Your claim that Daniel 9’s 70-week prophecy “comes out of” the 2300-day prophecy and must be years, ruling out Antiochus.
It comes out of the 2300 day(year) prophecy VISION. Daniel makes that very clear.
Dan 8:26“The vision of the evenings and mornings that has been given you is true, but seal up the vision, for it concerns the distant future.” 27I, Daniel, was worn out. I lay exhausted for several days. Then I got up and went about the king’s business. I was appalled by the vision; it was beyond understanding.
Daniel 9:20While I was speaking and praying, confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel and making my request to the Lord my God for his holy hill— 21while I was still in prayer, Gabriel, the man I had seen in the earlier vision, came to me in swift flight about the time of the evening sacrifice. 22He instructed me and said to me, “Daniel, I have now come to give you insight and understanding. 23As soon as you began to pray, a word went out, which I have come to tell you, for you are highly esteemed. THEREFORE, CONSIDER THE WORD AND UNDERSTAND THE VISION:
Maybe you should phone a friend and ask a smart Evangelical to weigh in on it? Pretty simple concept.
——>your assertion that distinguishing two visions in Daniel 8 and 9 is “stupidity” or a “Jesuit lie,” along with your dismissal of a “linguistic vision” as multiplying that error
There is no vision in Daniel 9. Is it in your Jesuit bible?
No vision in Daniel 9 and Antiochus is definitely not the Little Horn. Every Protestant Reformer knew that. That’s why the Jesuits had to fabricate Preterism and Futurism.
——>The phrase “consider the word and understand the vision” (9:23) refers to the 70-week prophecy
Not possible, since the last vision he had was in Daniel 8...the 2300 day/year vision...”and I was astonished at the vision, but none understood it.” and the 70 weeks prophecy DIDN’T COME TO DANIEL IN A VISION. Jesuits must be idiots if they can’t figure out something so simple and clear from the word of God.
Daniel 8:25 SDA Bible Commentary
Without hand. This implies that the Lord Himself will eventually destroy this power (see ch. 2:34). The ecclesiastical system represented by this power will continue until destroyed without human hands at the second coming of Christ (see 2 Thess. 2:8).
A number of commentators have set forth the view that the “little horn” power of ch. 8 symbolizes the career of Antiochus Epiphanes (see on ch. 11:14). However, a careful examination of the prophecy makes evident the incompleteness with which this persecuting Seleucid king fulfilled the specifications set forth. The four horns of the goat (ch. 8:8) were kingdoms (v. 22), and it is natural to expect the little horn to be a kingdom also. But Antiochus was only one king of the Seleucid empire, hence was a part of one horn. Therefore he could not be another complete horn. Further, this horn grew great toward the south, the east, and the pleasant land of Palestine (v. 9). Antiochus’ advance into Egypt ended in humiliation from the Romans, his successes in Palestine were short lived, and his push to the east was cut short by his death. His policy of enforced Hellenism utterly failed, nor did his craft bring him outstanding prosperity (v. 12).
Furthermore, Antiochus did not come at the latter end (v. 23), but about the middle of the period of the divided Hellenistic kingdoms; his might could hardly be attributed to anything but his own power (v. 22); his craft and policy failed more than they prospered (v. 25); he did not stand up against any Jewish “Prince of princes” (v. 25); his casting of the truth to the ground (v. 12) was temporary and completely unsuccessful, for it drove the Jews to the defense of their faith against Hellenism. Even though he spoke proud words, oppressed the people of God, and briefly desecrated the Temple, and though some other points might be argued for as partly true of his activities, nevertheless the inadequacy of Antiochus as a fulfillment of many specifications of the prophecy is obvious. See further on v. 14; chs. 9:25; 11:31.
SDA Bible Commentary on Chapter 9:
Some commentators have missed the close connection between chs. 8 and 9, and thus the relationship between the 2300 “days” of ch. 8 and the 70 “weeks” of ch. 9. The context, however, requires precisely this relationship, as the following facts make evident:
1. All symbols of the vision of ch. 8:2–14 are explained fully in vs. 15–26, with the exception of the 2300 “days” of vs. 13, 14 (see GC 325). In fact, all of vs. 13 and 14 is explained in vs. 24, 25 except the time element involved. In v. 26 Gabriel mentions the time element, but breaks off his explanation before saying anything further about it (see No. 3, below).
2. Daniel knew that the 70 years of captivity foretold by the prophet Jeremiah were nearly at an end (ch. 9:2; see Vol. III, pp. 90–92, 94–97; see on Jer. 25:11).
3. Daniel did not understand the 2300-day time period, the only part of the vision not yet explained (ch. 8:27; see No. 1, above), and evidently feared that it implied an extension of the Captivity and the continued desolation of the sanctuary (see ch. 9:19). He knew that the promise of restoration was conditional upon Israel’s sincere repentance (SL 48; see Vol. IV, p. 34).
4. The prospect of terrible persecution during the course of the 2300 “days” (Dan. 8:10 13, 23–25) proved more than the aged Daniel could bear, and as a result he “fainted, and was sick certain days” (ch. 8:27 GC 325). Accordingly, the angel discontinued the explanation of the vision at this time.
5. During the interval preceding the angel’s return (ch. 9:21) Daniel turned to the prophecies of Jeremiah for a clearer understanding of the divine purpose in the Captivity (see Vol. IV, p. 31), particularly with respect to the 70 years (ch. 9:2).
6. Concluding that Israel’s transgression as a nation was responsible for what he evidently took to be an extension of the 70 years (see No. 3, above), Daniel interceded most earnestly with God for forgiveness, for the return of the captive exiles, and for the restoration of the now desolate sanctuary in Jerusalem (see ch. 9:3–19). His prayer closes with a reiteration of the petition that God will “forgive” the sins of the nation and “defer not” the promise of restoration (v. 19).
7. Note particularly that the unexplained portion of the vision of ch. 8 had foretold that “the sanctuary and the host” would be “trodden under foot” (vs. 13, 14, 24) for a period of 2300 “days.” In his prayer Daniel pleads with God that the time allotted to the Captivity should not be extended (see vs. 16–19). A careful comparison of the prayer of ch. 9 with the problem of ch. 8 makes it clear beyond possible doubt that Daniel had the problem in mind as he prayed. He thought that the vision of the 2300 “days” of desolation for the sanctuary and persecution for God’s people implied that God would “defer” the restoration (ch. 9:19).
8. In answer to this prayer, Gabriel, who had been commissioned to explain the vision of ch. 8 (ch. 8:15–19) but had not as yet completed the explanation (see No. 4, above), greeted Daniel with the announcement, “I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding” (ch. 9:22).
9. The explanation of ch. 9:24–27 is clearly Heaven’s reply to Daniel’s prayer (v. 23), and the solution of the problem about which he was praying (see Nos. 6, 7, above). Compare the original command to Gabriel to explain the vision to Daniel (ch. 8:16) with the renewal of the command at the time of Daniel’s prayer (ch. 9:23), and Gabriel’s command to Daniel to “understand” and “know” (ch. 8:17, 19), with similar expressions in ch. 9:23.
10. Note particularly that Daniel was told to “understand the matter, and consider the vision” (ch. 9:23), that is, the vision he had seen “at the beginning” (v. 21). This can refer only to the vision of ch. 8:2–14, as no other vision had been given since that one. Compare the words “understand the vision” (ch. 8:16) with “consider the vision” (ch. 9:23).
11. The context thus makes certain beyond the possibility of doubt that the explanation of ch. 9:24–27 is a continuation, and completion, of the explanation begun in ch. 8:15–26, and that the explanation of ch. 9:24–27 deals exclusively with the unexplained portion of the vision, that is, with the time element of the 2300 “days” of ch. 8:13, 14. The angel is Gabriel in both instances (chs. 8:16; 9:21), the subject matter is identical, and the context makes evident that the concluding portion of the explanation picks up the thread of explanation at the point it was laid down in ch. 8.
You do not follow or listen to the Word of God so why would you listen to me to quit posting to me? The irony is rich. And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ ”
And follow it up with The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 2174-2176) explains Sunday as fulfilling the Sabbath’s spiritual purpose, which is literally the commandments of men.You hate the Sabbath because you hate Gods Laws. The one Commandment that starts with the warning "Remember" but you and the RCC say forget.I'll say it again, don't post to me. You are hopeless.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.