ahh, but Luke reports Jesus saying " New Covenant " in the Last Supper.
of course, Luke was a gentile, so i'm sure you will try to spin that.
Ahh, I know the koine greek in all the gospels concerning this passage, the others call it "the Covenant" Luke calls it ""
Mark 14:24 ►
Verse (Click for Chapter)
New International Version
"This is my blood of
the covenant, which is poured out for many," he said to them.
New Living Translation
And he said to them, "This is my blood, which confirms
the covenant between God and his people. It is poured out as a sacrifice for many.
English Standard Version
And he said to them, “This is my blood of
the covenant, which is poured out for many.
Berean Study Bible
He said to them, "This is My blood of
the covenant, which is poured out for many.
Berean Literal Bible
And He said to them, "This is My blood of
the covenant, which is being poured out for many.
New American Standard Bible
And He said to them, "This is My blood of
the covenant, which is poured out for many.
King James Bible
And he said unto them, This is my blood of the
new testament, which is shed for many.
c 24 Some manuscripts insert new
Matthew 26:28 ►
New International Version
This is my blood of
the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
New Living Translation
for this is my blood, which confirms
the covenant between God and his people. It is poured out as a sacrifice to forgive the sins of many.
English Standard Version
for this is my blood of
the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
Berean Study Bible
This is My blood of
the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
Berean Literal Bible
For this is My blood of
the covenant, being poured out for many, for forgiveness of sins.
New American Standard Bible
for this is My blood of
the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.
King James Bible
For this is my blood of the
new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
c 28 Some manuscripts
insert new
Luke 22:20 Strong's Transliteration Greek English Morphology
2532 [e] kai καὶ also Conj
3588 [e] to τὸ the Art-ANS
4221 [e] potērion ποτήριον cup N-ANS
5615 [e] hōsautōs ὡσαύτως likewise Adv
3326 [e] meta μετὰ after Prep
3588 [e] to τὸ which Art-ANS
1172 [e] deipnēsai δειπνῆσαι, having supped, V-ANA
3004 [e] legōn λέγων saying, V-PPA-NMS
3778 [e] Touto Τοῦτο This DPro-NNS
3588 [e] to τὸ - Art-NNS
4221 [e] potērion ποτήριον cup [is] N-NNS
3588 [e] hē ἡ the Art-NFS
2537 [e] kainē καινὴ new Adj-NFS
1242 [e] diathēkē διαθήκη covenant N-NFS
1722 [e] en ἐν in Prep
3588 [e] tō τῷ the Art-DNS
129 [e] haimati αἵματί blood N-DNS
1473 [e] mou μου, of me, PPro-G1S
3588 [e] to τὸ which Art-NNS
5228 [e] hyper ὑπὲρ for Prep
4771 [e] hymōn ὑμῶν you PPro-G2P
1632 [e] ekchynnomenon ἐκχυννόμενον. is being poured out. V-PPM/P-NNS
►HELPS Word-studies 2537
kainós – properly,
new in quality (innovation), fresh in development or opportunity – because "not found exactly like this before."
It is new in quality, if it were NEW outright "neos" would have been used:
HELPS Word-studies - #G3501 néos – new ("new on the scene"); recently revealed or "what was not there before" (TDNT), including what is recently discovered.
We are all in different places, I have studies this for years...
and, if you were to accept what Luke said as truth, as the early Church fathers did, that would mean you can't blame the separation of the O.T. and N.T. on the catholics
2 Facts:
1. Marcion was the one who introduces this, does not by that make it wrong however His reason for it were wrong.
2. All the prophecies in the "OT" are not YET fulfilled, they will be but have not yet been fulfilled... Thus some of it is still future, hard to be "old" when it is still future... Also Psalm 89 and 105 show it;s an eternal Covenant ratified in the Messiah's blood...
you do know that the " jewish writings" were not added to what we call the Bible until many years later, after the 66 books of the Cannon were gathered .
There are many diffferent Jewsish groups that accepted and denied differnt books. Who accepts and denies what is of really no consequence, interesting for sure and worth studying, but this does not prove or disprove anything. At one time the "apocrphal" books were included... The first 36 chapters of 1 Enoch are rejected by most....
IMO what matters is apply the Scriptural test of a prophet, in Deuteronomy and Yahshua... If that test is passed, it;s inspired... All translations do not match the manuscripts, even divergent ones... does not mean all or none, must be diligently searched....
but, this is how propaganda works- one has to make an enemy, and blame everything on that enemy.
Like what you do when you call me "Hebrew Roots" and "Seventh day Adventist" to de-humanize me and make me guilty of their errors?
I am not a catholic, and not a fan of theirs, but they did not make up the Trinity, Scripture proves it.
and, as far as the Trinity having nothing to do with salvation by Christ, well, neither does the Sabbath.
Well the only trinity verses is one of the most well know forgeries:
Proper and original text from the 1st century:
1 John/Yahanan 5:7-8, "For there are three which testify: The Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are of one accord."
Altered text from the 4th century:
1 John/Yahanan 5:7-8, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."
1 John 5:7-8, “Because there are three who bear witness: the Spirit, and the water, and the blood. And the three are in agreement."
‘Comma Johanneum’ or ‘the Heavenly Witnesses’ refers to a short clause in John 5:7-8 in the Latin Vulgate text which was transmitted since the Early Middle Ages. It was later included in the Textus Receptus (published in 1516) in support of trinity doctrine. The ‘comma’ does not appear in the older Greek text. The comma first appeared in the Vulgate manuscripts of the 9th century. The first Greek (Textus Receptus) manuscript that contains the comma dates from the 15th century. The comma is absent from the Ethiopiac, Aramaic, Syriac, Slavic, Armenian, Georgian, and Arabic translations of the Greek New Testament. The scholarly consensus is that that passage is a Latin corruption that entered the Greek manuscript tradition in some subsequent copies. As the ‘comma’ does not appear in the manuscript tradition of other languages.
Clarke's Commentary
1 John 5:7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one
There are three that bear record - The Father, who bears testimony to his Son; the Word or Λογος, Logos, who bears testimony to the Father; and the Holy Ghost, which bears testimony to the Father and the Son. And these three are one in essence, and agree in the one testimony, that Jesus came to die for, and give life to, the world.
But it is likely this verse is not genuine. It is wanting in every MS. of this epistle written before the invention of printing, one excepted, the Codex Montfortii, in Trinity College, Dublin: the others which omit this verse amount to one hundred and twelve.
It is wanting in both the Syriac, all the Arabic, Ethiopic, the Coptic, Sahidic, Armenian, Slavonian, etc., in a word, in all the ancient versions but the Vulgate; and even of this version many of the most ancient and correct MSS. have it not. It is wanting also in all the ancient Greek fathers; and in most even of the Latin.
