Why do we need priests?

[BreadOfLife]

I have not lied once. It is a figment of your imagination and your ability to obfuscate.

From post #782 - YOU said:
"A good teacher will ALWAYS teach in such a fashion that the student knows what you want them to know."

We ALL know that this is false. You can be the best teacher in the world and have a bad student who won't learn.
So much for this being a "figment of my imagination" . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

We have but being as obtuse as you are, you have the mendacity to try and avoid the truth.

Ummmmmm, please point me to a post - ANY post where you "proved" me wrong . . .

 

[Marymog]

So you believe the bread was pieces of his body?

He said This IS my body. So the onerous is upon you to prove that He was lying . I don't think He was lying.

According to Scripture some of His disciples walked away (John 6:66) when He said to them you must eat my flesh. They didn't understand what He meant. Just because you don't understand are you going walk away also?

Did you know that your 2nd century Christian brothers/sisters were accused of cannibalism by the Roman authorities? Did you know the symbolism teaching started after the Reformation?

Mary

 

[Marymog]

If you have read my previous posts you will know that I am not anti-Catholic because I am married to one.

I am anti-false doctrine which has caused the murder of countless innocent Christian believers. If a Catholic person says they are converted to Christ then I believe them, because according to their faith be it for them. I might think that their heads a somewhat off course, but only God knows their hearts, so I give them the benefit of the doubt.

So it is not that Queen Mary was a Catholic, but that she was a murderer and will be judged guilty in the Judgment and, like all unrepentant murderers will be consigned to the lake of fire without the possibility of parole.

So, because I don't believe in the idolatry of prayers to the Virgin Mary, popery, priestcraft, fancy hats and robes, the pagan Mass, the authority of the Church, and confession to priests, doesn't mean that I am anti-Catholics, or even against the Catholic church itself. it is just that I believe that the doctrines I have mentioned are doctrines that are not found in the Bible, and if they ain't in the Bible, then the ain't true.

Just because I say to my wife when she abuses a character on a soap opera, "St Pius wouldn't like that!" it doesn't mean that I am demeaning her, even though I might be poking fun at her religion!

Hi Paul,

If you are not anti-Catholic then why did you ONLY mention a Catholic Queen who authorized horrible acts against her fellow Christians. Why didn't you mention Protestant Royalty who authorized horrible acts against her fellow Christians???

How do you decide or even KNOW what is false doctrine? Who decides that?

So you are anti everything Catholic but you are not Anti-Catholic??? Fascinating?

What do you like about the Catholic Church?

 

[Dcopymope]

He said This IS my body. So the onerous is upon you to prove that He was lying . I don't think He was lying.

According to Scripture some of His disciples walked away (John 6:66) when He said to them you must eat my flesh. They didn't understand what He meant. Just because you don't understand are you going walk away also?

Did you know that your 2nd century Christian brothers/sisters were accused of cannibalism by the Roman authorities? Did you know the symbolism teaching started after the Reformation?

Mary

.....If you are claiming that "unleavened bread"="flesh", then it has to be demonstrated to be the case in the way the text is formed. In other words, you have to conclusively show that Jesus wasn't just using the bread they ate as a metaphor for his flesh and show that they actually committed cannibalism, by actually peeling off his skin and consuming it. You also have to conclusively present evidence in scripture that the wine they drank wasn't just being used as a metaphor for his blood, but his literal blood. The burden of proof is on YOU to prove that your logical fallacy is true. Its not true just because you say its true.

 

[Paul Christensen]

 

[Joseph77]

Why do we need priests?

But we do not need priests.

Why the Op/ thread ? It was a rhetorical question.

The high priest, Jesus, He's the ONE !

 

[Reggie Belafonte]

Why the Op/ thread ? It was a rhetorical question.

The high priest, Jesus, He's the ONE !

God sent us Priest to protect the sheep.
But the Devil also sends his priest who are ?

 

[Joseph77]

God sent us Priest to protect the sheep.
But the Devil also sends his priest who are ?

Forgot the Reformation ? It exposed multitudes of them.
Oh, that's not all, by any means....
But , where did you get from the Bible: "the devil also sends his priest" ?

 

[Pearl]

Why the Op/ thread ? It was a rhetorical question.

The high priest, Jesus, He's the ONE !

Not sure what you're getting at Joseph.

 

[Joseph77]

Not sure what you're getting at Joseph.

In the title is the question "why do we need priests."
Right?

Then in the thread, you posted "we do not need priests".

 

[Pearl]

In the title is the question "why do we need priests."
Right?

Then in the thread, you posted "we do not need priests".

Why do we need priests when we ourselves are priests? So we don't need priests.

 

[Joseph77]

Why do we need priests when we ourselves are priests? So we don't need priests.

In line with all Scripture, a high priest is needed for God's Purpose.
He makes priests in His Kingdom as He Says in His Word.
Many people 'claim' to be priests, and more wrongly even to be 'kings', and do not understand the context of who , when , or where it is so.

 

[Marymog]

.....If you are claiming that "unleavened bread"="flesh", then it has to be demonstrated to be the case in the way the text is formed. In other words, you have to conclusively show that Jesus wasn't just using the bread they ate as a metaphor for his flesh and show that they actually committed cannibalism, by actually peeling off his skin and consuming it. You also have to conclusively present evidence in scripture that the wine they drank wasn't just being used as a metaphor for his blood, but his literal blood. The burden of proof is on YOU to prove that your logical fallacy is true. Its not true just because you say its true.

Hi,

Before The Last Supper, in what is commonly called the bread of life discourse (John 6), He said I am the bread from heaven. Not like the bread Moses gave you. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh He. He also said unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life.."

Well Dcopymope they couldn't figure out what He meant by that.....and some of his disciples walked away because it was to hard for them to hear.....the Apostles didn't walk away

A little while later, at The Last Supper, He told the Apostles HOW they would eat his body and drink His blood. The Apostles shared this information with the disciples that didn't walk away. We still practice it 2,000 year later.

After the Reformation they couldn't figure out what He meant by This IS my body.....and some walked away (some Protestant Churches still believe in the Real Presence). It appears to me you walked away.

 

[Joseph77]

Well Dcopymope they couldn't figure out what He meant by that.....and some of his disciples walked away because it was to hard for them to hear.....the Apostles didn't walk away

The Roman Church deceived multitudes for almost 2000 years now, also not understanding at all, and not trying to find God's Kingdom - they rejected it.

Jesus told His apostles who did not walk away: "My Words ARE SPIRIT, and they ARE LIFE" (i.e. Jesus never violated TORAH which forbid drinking blood or eating flesh) His Apostles did not understand until He Explained - but they trusted Him and WAITED with Him, stayed with Him, even though they did not understand. The Roman Church, though, rejects the Word, instead of gaining understanding , instead of seeking understanding at all.

 

[Joseph77]

We do however, need people to be there with us and for us; to hold up our arms, to wipe our tears and to share our joy. We do need a support network of other Christians; people who will pray with us and for us, encourage, inspire and help us. We need teachers and preachers and we definitely need wise counsellors and inspirational leaders

Remember God has always known this, and provided the support , planned the support, before even creating the world and all life in it. In Ephesians God describes the various support/ help/ workers HE DESIGNED and describes HOW they work for the GOSPEL SAKE for all EKKLESIA in the body ... including protection from the "many anti-christs" among us (on this forum/ site/in churches that promote the abomination false gospel and false teachings daily (rome, etc) ) ....

 

[BreadOfLife]

The Roman Church deceived multitudes for almost 2000 years now, also not understanding at all, and not trying to find God's Kingdom - they rejected it.

Jesus told His apostles who did not walk away: "My Words ARE SPIRIT, and they ARE LIFE" (i.e. Jesus never violated TORAH which forbid drinking blood or eating flesh) His Apostles did not understand until He Explained - but they trusted Him and WAITED with Him, stayed with Him, even though they did not understand. The Roman Church, though, rejects the Word, instead of gaining understanding , instead of seeking understanding at all.

And WHY was consuming blood forbidden??

Answer: Because the LIFE was contained in the blood (Lev. 17:11) - and you don't want the life of a goat or a bull in you.
HOWEVER - there is ONE Person whose life you DO want in you - and that is Christ.

Incidentally - you're WRONG about eating flesh. That was never forbidden.
Just as the Jews were to consume the flesh of the Passover Lamb - Christians are to consume the flesh of our Paschal Lamb of God.

NT fulfillments are always more perfect and glorious than their OT Types - without exception . . .

 

[Paul Christensen]

Why the Op/ thread ? It was a rhetorical question.

The high priest, Jesus, He's the ONE !

The function of a priest is not found anywhere in the New Testament. Every genuine believer has God, in the Person of the Holy Spirit, living right inside of him, so why in thunder would we need a human priest? Is the human priest better than the Holy Spirit whom Jesus said would teach us all things, rather than any man (from his own opinions - although a faithful Bible teacher is teaching what the Holy Spirit wants us to know anyway).

 

[Philip James]

Why do we need priests when we ourselves are priests? So we don't need priests.

"Enough from you! The whole community, all of them, are holy; the LORD is in their midst. Why then should you set yourselves over the LORD'S congregation?"

Peace be with you!

 

[Pearl]

"Enough from you! The whole community, all of them, are holy; the LORD is in their midst. Why then should you set yourselves over the LORD'S congregation?"

Peace be with you!

Is that quote directed at me? If it is I don't know what you mean and if it isn't I don't know what you mean.