Adventists view of the Old Covenant and the New Covenant

BobRyan · Jul 15, 2026

The Liturgist said:
Previously you tried to insist John chapter 6 was not related to Holy Communion

1. John 6 is most certainly not a communion service
2. In John 6 Jesus did NOT say "some day in the future you will need to bite on me" He says they ALREADY need the WORD that is spirit and is life
3. Not even the faithful disciples bite Jesus in John 6 RATHER they say (as He said ) 'you have the WORDS of LIFE"

The Liturgist said:
, but now you’re trying to use it to contradict “This is my body” and “this is my blood.”

nope. I affirm the symbolism. I affirm that no one bites Christ in John 6.
I affirm the the Gospel covenant, the NEW Covenant, the thing you absolutely do not quote at all so far.. is the GOSPEL covenant.
You claim to talk about the gospel yet refuse to even quote the gospel covenant and what it says.

The Liturgist said:
On the contrary, they failed to take Him literally because of their carnal reaction.

They did take Him literally and refused to bite, so they left.
The faithful disciples accepted 'his teaching" that eating literal flesh was worthless just as HE said, and the point was to accept His WORD.

The Liturgist said:
No, He did not, he said “the flesh profiteth nothing”

indeed. Literal flesh, eating literal flesh does not bring about salvation. Rather He said IN THE CHAPTER that listening to His WORD brings life.

The Liturgist said:
for which I have provided an exegesis, and which is also consistent with the warnings of St. Paul that the letter killeth, but the Spirit gives life in 2 Corinthians 3:6 regarding the Law

The Spirit gives life, eating flesh does not bring eternal life.

The Liturgist said:
You are trying to force your own memorialist interpretation onto the words

1 Cor 11;
23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”.

You post as if Paul's statement above is nothing more than BobRyan's own interpretation

More bible reading please, less false accusation

The Liturgist said:
of our Lord, an interpretation which did not exist prior to the 16th century

Read..
John 6
1 Cor 11.

They were written long before the 16th century

BobRyan · Jul 15, 2026

The Liturgist said:
I would not debate the Eucharist with you at all were it not for the criticism of the ancient churches and their members including the millions of Armenian, Assyrian, Pontic Greek, Suroye, Antiochian, Romanian, Bulgarian, Serbian, Greek, Russian, Ukrarinian, English, Scottish, Irish, Dutch, Prussian, Swiss, Eritrean, Belarussian, Ethiopian, Coptic Orthodox, Nigerian, Pakistani, Native Alaskan and Alexandrian Greek martyrs

This thread is not about debating your view of Eucharist

The Liturgist said:
For example, my dear friend @Hentenza as far as I’m aware does not believe in the Real Presence,

Nonsense. We all believe in the "real presence" of Christ as we see in Matt 18:20
20 For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.”

BobRyan · Jul 15, 2026

The Spirit gives life, eating flesh does not bring eternal life.

The Liturgist said:
You are trying to force your own memorialist interpretation onto the words

And so I respond with the very "memorialist" language in scripture that sustains my case and exposes a flaw in your speculation above about that memorial language being 'mine"

1 Cor 11;
23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”.

so I posted it.. like this

BobRyan said:
1 Cor 11;
23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”.

You post as if Paul's statement above is nothing more than BobRyan's own interpretation

The Liturgist said:
Yes we’ve been over this before - that argument is intrinsically flawed

Not in real life. In Real life it uses the very memorial terms you seem to so strongly oppose.

And you can't simply "blame me" when that detail is pointed out. That is not a solution

The Liturgist said:
since it rests upon a false dilemma and a strawman

not in real life. It simply brings out a detail that does not reflect well on your own personal complaint about memorial language.

The Liturgist said:
(a) the word anamnesis, translated as “remembrance” is a bit like logos or prosopon - it is one of those Greek words which is more complicated than it might first appear, being one of many cases where a word of philosophical significance was intentionally used by the Holy Apostles.

your need to "dismiss it" noted.

But I am sure that even you can appreciate just how it is that the rest of us are entirely satisfied with the text as it reads, and simiply trying to "blame it on me" is not a solution at all.

BobRyan · Jul 15, 2026

BobRyan said:
Read..
John 6
1 Cor 11.

They were written long before the 16th century

to which you responded

The Liturgist said:
I would suggest that you withdraw the above remark, since it’s essentially an ad hominem that accuses me and everyone else who believes in the Real Presence of having not read those Scriptures and is yet another case of a pattern wherein anyone who takes a divergent interpretation is dismissed as ignoring or disobeying Scripture.

We "noticed" that when you complain about "memorialist language' you did not quote the memorial language of 1 Cor 11 or Christ's own statement in John 6 that eating literal flesh was pointless when it comes to solving the problem of sin. So... I refer you back to those texts you skimmed past.

reddogs · Jul 19, 2026

BobRyan said:
1. John 6 is most certainly not a communion service
2. In John 6 Jesus did NOT say "some day in the future you will need to bite on me" He says they ALREADY need the WORD that is spirit and is life
3. Not even the faithful disciples bite Jesus in John 6 RATHER they say (as He said ) 'you have the WORDS of LIFE"

nope. I affirm the symbolism. I affirm that no one bites Christ in John 6.
I affirm the the Gospel covenant, the NEW Covenant, the thing you absolutely do not quote at all so far.. is the GOSPEL covenant.
You claim to talk about the gospel yet refuse to even quote the gospel covenant and what it says.

They did take Him literally and refused to bite, so they left.
The faithful disciples accepted 'his teaching" that eating literal flesh was worthless just as HE said, and the point was to accept His WORD.

indeed. Literal flesh, eating literal flesh does not bring about salvation. Rather He said IN THE CHAPTER that listening to His WORD brings life.

The Spirit gives life, eating flesh does not bring eternal life.

1 Cor 11;
23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”.

You post as if Paul's statement above is nothing more than BobRyan's own interpretation

More bible reading please, less false accusation

Read..
John 6
1 Cor 11.

They were written long before the 16th century

Not sure how they see anything but Christ being compassionate to the people coming to hear him.

Matthew 14:17-21 KJV

"And they say unto him, We have here but five loaves, and two fishes. He said, Bring them hither to me. And he commanded the multitude to sit down on the grass, and took the five loaves, and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he blessed, and brake, and gave the loaves to his disciples, and the disciples to the multitude. And they did all eat, and were filled: and they took up of the fragments that remained twelve baskets full. And they that had eaten were about five thousand men, beside women and children" (Matthew 14:17-21 KJV)

Mark 6:38-44 KJV

Jesus instructs the disciples to feed the crowd: "How many loaves have ye? go and see. And when they knew, they say, Five, and two fishes. And he commanded them to make all sit down by companies upon the green grass. And he took the five loaves and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he blessed, and brake the loaves, and gave them to his disciples to set before them; and the two fishes divided he among them all. And they did all eat, and were filled" (Mark 6:38-44 KJV)

Luke 9:16 KJV

"Then he took the five loaves and the two fish, and looking up to heaven, he blessed them, and brake, and gave to the disciples to set before the multitude" (Luke 9:16 KJV)

John 6:9-13 KJV

"There is a lad here, which hath five barley loaves, and two small fishes: but what are they among so many? And Jesus took the loaves, and when he had given thanks, he distributed to the disciples, and the disciples to them that were set down; and they did all eat, and were filled. And they took up of the fragments that remained twelve baskets full" (John 6:9-13 KJV)

The Liturgist · Jul 19, 2026

BobRyan said:
We "noticed" that when you complain about "memorialist language' you did not quote the memorial language of 1 Cor 11 or Christ's own statement in John 6 that eating literal flesh was pointless when it comes to solving the problem of sin. So... I refer you back to those texts you skimmed past.

I specifcally addressed the meaning of both of those texts in my replies, indeed I began with an explanation as to how the word anamnesis in 1 Corinthians 11 was being misinterpreted, and demonstrated how they do not refute the real presence. Thus, I would respectfully ask you to re-read my posts, since you will see that actually 1 Corinthians 11 and the meaning of anamnesis is central to my argument, and regarding John 6, I provided an exegesis which has the considerable advantage of not having had our Lord assert a doctrinal truth only to then roll it back.

You might disagree with the Patristic interpretation I provided, but that does not mean I did not address those points.*

The problem with your hermeneutic is you’re attempting to use these verses to negate other verses, which is eisegetical, rather than a constructive inference as to what these verses mean when read in harmony with each other, which was the approach used by the early church and by the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Martin Luther and by confessional Lutherans and high church Anglicans and other Bible Protestants who like the Orthodox, care about consistency and an exegetical approach to hermeneutics rather than proof-texting, as @MarkRohfrietsch @ViaCrucis @Ain't Zwinglian @prodromos @FenderTL5 and @tall73 can confirm.

* Speaking of which, you seem to be writing as though I’m developing my own interpretation of these texts in defense of the doctrine of the Real Presence, as though such a thing would be necessary. This is not the case - what I am conveying is the Patristic interpretation of these verses going back to the first century. In the early church we have records of dissent over many things, but the Real Presence never became a bone of contention - only the Meletians inclined in such a direction (and they were a non-Christian heretical cult preaching a false Gospel, like the Valentinians, Manichaeans, Arians, Paulicans, Marcionists, Ebionites, etc) but their approach was more akin to the Quaker approach of not celebrating the sacraments ordained by Christ at all.

reddogs · Jul 30, 2026

The Liturgist said:
I specifcally addressed the meaning of both of those texts in my replies, indeed I began with an explanation as to how the word anamnesis in 1 Corinthians 11 was being misinterpreted, and demonstrated how they do not refute the real presence. Thus, I would respectfully ask you to re-read my posts, since you will see that actually 1 Corinthians 11 and the meaning of anamnesis is central to my argument, and regarding John 6, I provided an exegesis which has the considerable advantage of not having had our Lord assert a doctrinal truth only to then roll it back.

You might disagree with the Patristic interpretation I provided, but that does not mean I did not address those points.*

The problem with your hermeneutic is you’re attempting to use these verses to negate other verses, which is eisegetical, rather than a constructive inference as to what these verses mean when read in harmony with each other, which was the approach used by the early church and by the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Martin Luther and by confessional Lutherans and high church Anglicans and other Bible Protestants who like the Orthodox, care about consistency and an exegetical approach to hermeneutics rather than proof-texting, as @MarkRohfrietsch @ViaCrucis @Ain't Zwinglian @prodromos @FenderTL5 and @tall73 can confirm.

* Speaking of which, you seem to be writing as though I’m developing my own interpretation of these texts in defense of the doctrine of the Real Presence, as though such a thing would be necessary. This is not the case - what I am conveying is the Patristic interpretation of these verses going back to the first century. In the early church we have records of dissent over many things, but the Real Presence never became a bone of contention - only the Meletians inclined in such a direction (and they were a non-Christian heretical cult preaching a false Gospel, like the Valentinians, Manichaeans, Arians, Paulicans, Marcionists, Ebionites, etc) but their approach was more akin to the Quaker approach of not celebrating the sacraments ordained by Christ at all.

Zwingli was correct in his understanding that bread and wine are a sign pointing to Christ’s body and blood, but Christ is not physically present in them.

MarkRohfrietsch · Jul 30, 2026

reddogs said:
Zwingli was correct in his understanding that bread and wine are a sign pointing to Christ’s body and blood, but Christ is not physically present in them.

Christ's own words say different, therefor, you are wrong. What does Scripture state regarding discerning Christ's body and blood? If it is not real, then why this admonition.

reddogs · Saturday at 6:21 PM

MarkRohfrietsch said:
Christ's own words say different, therefor, you are wrong. What does Scripture state regarding discerning Christ's body and blood? If it is not real, then why this admonition.

I dont see the link or text....

MarkRohfrietsch · Saturday at 8:34 PM

reddogs said:
I dont see the link or text....

Please, don't play dumb. You have engaged in this topic dozens of times, gotten clear answers.

Scripture says, let he who has ears hear.

reddogs · Monday at 3:25 PM

MarkRohfrietsch said:
Please, don't play dumb. You have engaged in this topic dozens of times, gotten clear answers.

Scripture says, let he who has ears hear.

Nice, well I was having a discussion with the Calvinist on this exact same topic and went over the opposing views gone over at the Marburg Colloquy. We see this:

Key Points of Disagreement

Real Presence vs. Symbolism:
- Luther's View: Luther believed in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, asserting that the bread and wine are not merely symbols but that Christ's body and blood are truly present "in, with, and under" the elements. He maintained that the words of Jesus, "This is my body," should be taken literally.
- Zwingli's View: In contrast, Zwingli argued that the bread and wine are purely symbolic and serve as a memorial of Christ's sacrifice. He believed that the elements represent Christ's body and blood but do not contain them, emphasizing a spiritual communion rather than a physical presence.

Then we see a try of explaining what Luther really believe or settled on, which I still am not entirely clear how it truly changes or really differs from the Roman Catholic veiw of 'transubstantiation'. We see it here:

Martin Luther did not believe in transubstantiation; he affirmed the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist through what is often called the sacramental union or consubstantiation.

Martin Luther rejected the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, which teaches that the bread and wine are transformed in substance into the body and blood of Christ while retaining their outward appearances (taste, color, and texture) during the Mass He opposed the metaphysical speculation about how this change occurs, preferring to focus on the literal presence of Christ in the sacrament

Instead, Luther taught that Christ’s body and blood are truly present “in, with, and under” the bread and wine whenever the Lord’s Supper is celebrated. This view is sometimes referred to as consubstantiation, though Luther himself did not use that term. He emphasized that the presence of Christ is a divine mystery and a miracle, not dependent on philosophical explanations of substance.

Luther’s position differs from transubstantiation in that the bread and wine remain physically bread and wine, but Christ’s body and blood are truly present alongside them. This approach aligns more closely with the Eastern Orthodox understanding of the Real Presence, which also avoids detailed metaphysical explanations.

In summary, while Luther strongly affirmed the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, he explicitly denied transubstantiation and rejected the idea that the Mass is a repeated sacrifice, focusing instead on faith in Christ’s promise and the Word of God as the guarantee of His presence.

reddogs · Monday at 3:32 PM

And except for the admin of the site of course, I began to get from members on the site what I would call the true meaning of it..

'Sacramentalism (albeit with a reduced number of alleged "sacraments") is a hangover from Roman Catholicism (grave clothes that many of the Reformers did not throw out).'...Since the Lord is omnipresent, then the real presence of Christ is with his people continually. He is Christ in us, the hope of glory.'

We shall see how this goes...

MarkRohfrietsch · Tuesday at 8:35 AM

reddogs said:
And except for the admin of the site of course, I began to get from members on the site what I would call the true meaning of it..

'Sacramentalism (albeit with a reduced number of alleged "sacraments") is a hangover from Roman Catholicism (grave clothes that many of the Reformers did not throw out).'...Since the Lord is omnipresent, then the real presence of Christ is with his people continually. He is Christ in us, the hope of glory.'

We shall see how this goes...

Not "grave clothes" as you posted, but the "baby" that did not get thrown out with the bath-water.

Those who reject the real presence in the Eucharist, the means of grace found in the Eucharist, confession and absolution and infant baptism, are the ones who have "thrown the baby out with the bath water"; so what is that "baby"? That baby is "The Word", "The Word is Jesus Christ".

Yes, it is that clear to traditional Christians. It is not the Catholic Church nor the Orthodox that have done this; rather it is, as the Lutheran Reformers called them: The radical reformed, or the enthusiasts.

Enthusiasts, think about it... If the shoe fits...

SabbathBlessings · Tuesday at 8:47 AM

I don't think it's biblical to equate disagreement over sacramental theology with rejecting "the Word." Scripture identifies Jesus as the Word John 1:1, 14, but it never says that rejecting a particular view of the Eucharist, confession, or infant baptism is the same as rejecting Christ Himself. Those doctrines should each be examined on their own biblical merits rather than assuming that accepting or rejecting them determines whether someone has embraced or rejected "the Word." Like the Bereans, we should test every teaching by Scripture Acts 17:11, not by church tradition or historical labels.

MarkRohfrietsch · Tuesday at 8:57 AM

SabbathBlessings said:
I don't think it's biblical to equate disagreement over sacramental theology with rejecting "the Word." Scripture identifies Jesus as the Word John 1:1, 14, but it never says that rejecting a particular view of the Eucharist, confession, or infant baptism is the same as rejecting Christ Himself. Those doctrines should each be examined on their own biblical merits rather than assuming that accepting or rejecting them determines whether someone has embraced or rejected "the Word." Like the Bereans, we should test every teaching by Scripture Acts 17:11, not by church tradition or historical labels.

Actually, it is, what does our Lord tell us in the Gospel of John, Chapter 1?

John 1

English Standard Version Anglicised

The Word Became Flesh

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life,[a] and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

ESV Anglicized, Bible Gateway.

SabbathBlessings · Tuesday at 8:57 AM

MarkRohfrietsch said:
Actually, it is, what does our Lord tell us in the Gospel of John, Chapter 1?

John 1

English Standard Version Anglicised

The Word Became Flesh
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life,[a] and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

ESV Anglicized, Bible Gateway.

Yes, I acknowledged this fact in my post...that wasn't my argument.

Adventists view of the Old Covenant and the New Covenant

Junior Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Contributor

Matthew 14:17-21 KJV​

Mark 6:38-44 KJV​

Luke 9:16 KJV​

John 6:9-13 KJV​

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Contributor

Unapologetic Apologist

Contributor

Unapologetic Apologist

Contributor

Key Points of Disagreement​

Martin Luther did not believe in transubstantiation; he affirmed the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist through what is often called the sacramental union or consubstantiation.​

Contributor

Unapologetic Apologist

Well-Known Member

Unapologetic Apologist

John 1 English Standard Version Anglicised The Word Became Flesh​

Well-Known Member

John 1​

​

English Standard Version Anglicised​

​

The Word Became Flesh​

Similar threads

Matthew 14:17-21 KJV

Mark 6:38-44 KJV

Luke 9:16 KJV

John 6:9-13 KJV

Key Points of Disagreement

Martin Luther did not believe in transubstantiation; he affirmed the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist through what is often called the sacramental union or consubstantiation.

John 1

English Standard Version Anglicised

The Word Became Flesh

John 1

English Standard Version Anglicised

The Word Became Flesh