Where does the Bible say...

[BarneyFife]

Unable to respond on the merits? That's fine.

God Bless.

No, as I said to another poster in this thread, mental gymnastics is not my thing. I prefer simple, plain reading to sophistry.

 

[Illuminator]

Sorry, but I've heard this interpretation before and I remain unconvinced. Mental gymnastics is not my thing. I prefer simple, plain reading to sophistry.

Solid biblical evidence is not sophistry. Changing the meaning of key words like "memorial" is sophistry.

 

[WaterSong]

No, as I said to another poster in this thread, mental gymnastics is not my thing. I prefer simple, plain reading to sophistry.

Odd that you haven't demonstrated that at all.


"There Is One God And One Mediator Between God And Men, The Man Christ Jesus"
1 Timothy 2:5

 

[BarneyFife]

Heb. 9:23 – in this verse, the author writes that the Old Testament sacrifices were only copies of the heavenly things, but now heaven has better “sacrifices” than these. Why is the heavenly sacrifice called “sacrifices,” in the plural? Jesus died once. This is because, while Christ’s sacrifice is transcendent in heaven, it touches down on earth and is sacramentally re-presented over and over again from the rising of the sun to its setting around the world by the priests of Christ’s Church. This is because all moments to God are present in their immediacy, and when we offer the memorial sacrifice to God, we ask God to make the sacrifice that is eternally present to Him also present to us. Jesus’ sacrifice also transcends time and space because it was the sacrifice of God Himself.

Heb. 9:23 – the Eucharistic sacrifice also fulfills Jer. 33:18 that His kingdom will consist of a sacrificial priesthood forever, and fulfills Zech. 9:15 that the sons of Zion shall drink blood like wine and be saved.

Heb. 13:15 – this “sacrifice of praise” refers to the actual sacrifice or “toda” offering of Christ who, like the Old Testament toda offerings, now must be consumed. See, for example, Lev. 7:12-15; 22:29-30 which also refer to the “sacrifice of praise” in connection with animals who had to be eaten after they were sacrificed.

Heb. 2:17; 3:1; 4:14; 8:1; 9:11,25; 10:19,22 – Jesus is repeatedly described as “High Priest.” But in order to be a priest, “it is necessary for [Jesus] to have something to offer.” Heb. 8:3. This is the offering of the eternal sacrifice of His body and blood to the Father.

Heb. 5:6,10; 6:20; 7:15,17 – these verses show that Jesus restores the father-son priesthood after Melchizedek. Jesus is the new priest and King of Jerusalem and feeds the new children of Abraham with His body and blood. This means that His eternal sacrifice is offered in the same manner as the bread and wine offered by Melchizedek in Gen. 14:18. But the bread and wine that Jesus offers is different, just as the Passover Lamb of the New Covenant is different. The bread and wine become His body and blood by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit.

Heb. 4:3 – God’s works were finished from the foundation of the world. This means that God’s works, including Christ’s sacrifice (the single act that secured the redemption of our souls and bodies), are forever present in eternity. Jesus’ suffering is over and done with (because suffering was earthly and temporal), but His sacrifice is eternal, because His priesthood is eternal (His victimized state was only temporal).

I appreciate your effort, but it just comes across as verbose, disjointed sophistry. Could be right, could be wrong. The plain, simple reading of Scripture is all I feel is safe.

 

[BarneyFife]

Solid biblical evidence is not sophistry. Changing the meaning of key words like "memorial" is sophistry.

"This do in remembrance of me" is sophistry?

 

[BarneyFife]

"There Is One God And One Mediator Between God And Men, The Man Christ Jesus"
1 Timothy 2:5

I'm in total agreement with this.

 

[Marymog]

That's not correct. They're were reformers in different parts of the world who had no contact with one another yet arrived at the same answers. Why? Because they read and studied their Bibles.

Time for a Protestant history lesson:

Reformer Zwingili: Conrad Grebel, Felix Manz, and about 13 other of Zwingli's followers didn’t feel the Reformation was going far enough so they reformed Zwingli's teachings. These 15 reformers of Zwingli's teachings felt betrayed by Zwingli and Zwingli looked on them as irresponsible. When this happened they parted ways.

Reformer John Calvin: Michael Servetus was arrested and charged with heresy and killed because he reformed Calvin's teachings. When Jacques Gruet, a theologian with differing views than Calvin, placed a letter in Calvin’s pulpit calling him a hypocrite, he was arrested, tortured for a month and beheaded on July 26, 1547. Sebastian Castillo, an old friend of Calvin, was fired from his position and expelled from the city of Geneva because he disagreed with him on some points of doctrine. For accusing the Calvinist doctrine of being absurd, Jérôme-Hermès Bolsec was sent to prison for weeks and then banished from Geneva.

Reformer Martin Luther: Religious disputes between the Crypto-Calvinists, Philippists, Sacramentarians, Ubiquitarians and Gnesio-Lutherans raged within Lutheranism during the middle of the 16th century.

I could go on and on and on but I sincerely hope you learned something about your own Christian history.

The Reformers and the Reformers of the reformers all read and studied their bibles and they all disagreed with each others interpretation.

Mary

 

[BarneyFife]

Time for a Protestant history lesson:

Reformer Zwingili: Conrad Grebel, Felix Manz, and about 13 other of Zwingli's followers didn’t feel the Reformation was going far enough so they reformed Zwingli's teachings. These 15 reformers of Zwingli's teachings felt betrayed by Zwingli and Zwingli looked on them as irresponsible. When this happened they parted ways.

Reformer John Calvin: Michael Servetus was arrested and charged with heresy and killed because he reformed Calvin's teachings. When Jacques Gruet, a theologian with differing views than Calvin, placed a letter in Calvin’s pulpit calling him a hypocrite, he was arrested, tortured for a month and beheaded on July 26, 1547. Sebastian Castillo, an old friend of Calvin, was fired from his position and expelled from the city of Geneva because he disagreed with him on some points of doctrine. For accusing the Calvinist doctrine of being absurd, Jérôme-Hermès Bolsec was sent to prison for weeks and then banished from Geneva.

Reformer Martin Luther: Religious disputes between the Crypto-Calvinists, Philippists, Sacramentarians, Ubiquitarians and Gnesio-Lutherans raged within Lutheranism during the middle of the 16th century.

I could go on and on and on but I sincerely hope you learned something about your own Christian history.

The Reformers and the Reformers of the reformers all read and studied their bibles and they all disagreed with each others interpretation.

Mary

Some people call it progressive revelation.

I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. (John 16:12)

 

[Marymog]

Some people call it progressive revelation.

I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. (John 16:12)

Thank you. I have never heard that term before. That term leads me to one big question: When does this "progressive revelation" end?

That question isn't necessarily for you to answer; just a question in my head.

Martin Luther disagreed with The Church and modified some Church teachings. Another man agrees with a lot of Luther's doctrines but he is progressive and he disagrees with Luther on some teachings. A student of that man disagrees with him etc etc for the next 500 year? 700 years? 1,000 years? When does it end and who is right?



Mary

 

[ReChoired]

John 3:16-17
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him."

Notice? It does not say, might be saved through the office of the priests.

Your own text just stated the opposite of what you stated. Please notice again:

Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Joh 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.​

Notice, that God (that is the Person/Being of the Father, for Jesus is the "Son of God", see vs 18) provided the SACRIFICE (LAMB; John 1:29,36), as promised (Genesis 3:15,22, 22:8), when in vs 16 Jesus said, "he (God) gave". Gave for what purpose? A SACRIFICE. How do I know? Context:

Joh 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
Joh 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.​

The redemption from Sin requires the SACRIFICE, but also the HIGH PRIEST to minister that SACRIFICE to the Heart/Man which was defiled, dead in trespasses and in sins. Now notice the second part in your verses, vs 17, wherein it is stated, "that the world through him might be saved".

How can the world be saved by a mere SACRIFICE, if there were no HIGH PRIEST to present that SACRIFICE before The Father in Heaven, and to apply that BLOOD to the Doorpost of the Heart of mankind? The "through him (Jesus)", signifies that WORK of the HIGH PRIEST in ministering the SACRIFICE provided by the Father in His Son, through the Holy Ghost/Spirit.

Jesus, in the OT and the NT is called after the order (of Priesthood) of Melchizedek (Melchisedec). The type for this was found in Genesis 14:18 and in the Aaronic (typologically).

Heb_2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

Heb_9:11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;

Heb 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.​

In Revelation, Jesus is seen in the garb of the High Priest, even ministering in the Holy Place of Heaven, amidst the seven-golden candlesticks:

Rev 1:13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.​

The eternal redemption is in the hands of the High Priest Jesus Christ.

Mankind must not only be "bought", they must be "brought" back to perfection through the SACRIFICE and HIGH PRIESTHOOD of Jesus.

Two works of the Real Sanctuary (Hebrews 8:2):

[1] Lamb (Outer court), earth (John 1:29,36)

[2] Priest (Holy & Most Holy Place), Heaven (Hebrews 4:14-16)​

Two phases of work, in Leviticus 25:51,55

[1] bought (1 Peter 1:18-19)

[2] brought (1 Peter 3:18), to perfection​

 

[ReChoired]

The Reformers and the Reformers of the reformers all read and studied their bibles and they all disagreed with each others interpretation.

I have actually read all of J. H. Merle D'Aubigny's History of the Reformation, and the History of the Reformation in the time of Calvin (which most haven't and therefore slander Calvin, in regards Servetus, Calvin actually tried to save his life against the local and more political council), and read many other such works, of not only Reformation history, but even of Catholic history.

So, of course they all "disagreed with each others interpretation", and I told you why. They were allowing men to interpret. They had not yet realized that it is God who interprets God in scripture, as I keep telling you (but you refuse to hear and continually change my words to make me say or imply something I have not said nor implied). There were also other extenuating factors, like battle against the prevailing political/religious climate of the continued Roman Empire and their own ideologies. For instance, Luther and several others were coming out of that apostate system of Roman Catholicism, and had a lot of baggage to drop. Some, like Luther were more cautious, and rightly so, against a lot of the fantacism that arose on both sides (Catholic/Protestant), and both sides were trying to distance themselves from each of those factions, and some compromised and others got swept up in them. As for instance, Melanchthon compromised, to try to get a treaty/statement of faith with Romanism, and persons like Carlstadt studied and came to more truths revealed in the word, like the Sabbath (and yet, also at the same time promoted a more fanatical reform, which injured his cause with Luther). Some were desirous to see more political change than spiritual (see Philip of Hesse, love that hot head), and took up arms, while others saw the foolishness in that, and didn't. Zwingli knew better, but got himself killed. His wife tried to warn him, as others.

When Luther and other reformers met to discuss the "Lord's supper" among other things, it was Luther who refused to back down, and became stubborn (he was German after all), and trusted to his own knowledge. Later, nearing the end of his life, he would renounce that position he so stubbornly stood for then, see Table Talk. It cost the Reformation a lot because he did that.

Your history portrayal is weak and watered at best, and historic revisionism at worst.

It is not "I", "you" "them" or "they" which is to interpret scripture. As I have already shown you from the word itself, with texts cited, it is God which interprets God, and we are to simply read, understand and Amen what God said therein. If we all did that, we would all be on the same page, but because most in the world (like yourself) do not even acknowledge such a principle in the Bible itself, you have what you have in the world at large, even in the general christian 'world', confusion.

It exists within Romanism, also, like the sedevacanists, Society of Pius X, and other dissidents, various excluded priest orders, the divisions of 'orthodoxy', such as the 'filioque', the Maronites, &c. the several anti-popes that have existed over the years, such as at Avignon, &c. So please do not pretend that Catholicism is this 'united and undivided front'. That would be willing and purposeful blindness and falsehood. There are many, even today, within Catholicism (as seen even on CAF), that believe that Jorge Bergoglio is an anti-pope, if not working for satan directly.

 

[ReChoired]

Martin Luther disagreed with The Church and modified some Church teachings.

And your prevailing point would be??? Didn't you earlier say it were 'men' that changed certain things? That Peter, a single man, could do certain things? You take away from Luther what you give to others? Luther cannot modify whereas others you accept can?

 

[Brakelite]

Time for a Protestant history lesson:

Reformer Zwingili: Conrad Grebel, Felix Manz, and about 13 other of Zwingli's followers didn’t feel the Reformation was going far enough so they reformed Zwingli's teachings. These 15 reformers of Zwingli's teachings felt betrayed by Zwingli and Zwingli looked on them as irresponsible. When this happened they parted ways.

Reformer John Calvin: Michael Servetus was arrested and charged with heresy and killed because he reformed Calvin's teachings. When Jacques Gruet, a theologian with differing views than Calvin, placed a letter in Calvin’s pulpit calling him a hypocrite, he was arrested, tortured for a month and beheaded on July 26, 1547. Sebastian Castillo, an old friend of Calvin, was fired from his position and expelled from the city of Geneva because he disagreed with him on some points of doctrine. For accusing the Calvinist doctrine of being absurd, Jérôme-Hermès Bolsec was sent to prison for weeks and then banished from Geneva.

Reformer Martin Luther: Religious disputes between the Crypto-Calvinists, Philippists, Sacramentarians, Ubiquitarians and Gnesio-Lutherans raged within Lutheranism during the middle of the 16th century.

I could go on and on and on but I sincerely hope you learned something about your own Christian history.

The Reformers and the Reformers of the reformers all read and studied their bibles and they all disagreed with each others interpretation.

Mary

Mary, I am quite aware of the history of Protestantism. And you are correct in that the reformers certainly disagreed with one another even to the point of persecuting. But let me remind you of a couple of important points about this history lesson you have chosen to present to me.
First, every major reformer was at first Catholic. Many were priests, professors in Catholic universities, holding positions of respect and honor within Catholic institutions. Their teachings, as @BarnyFife previously said, were progressive. None of them had set down a full theology devoid of Catholic error. There was a learning curve as they extricated themselves from the system of religion that they grew up with, were educated by, and were led to believe was "truth". However, as they studied their Bibles, they discovered that what they had been taught and what they themselves were teaching, were wrong. But they didn't find everything at once. What Luther found Calvin built on. But unfortunately the Lutherans didn't like the new teachings of Calvin. And the Calvinists didn't like the new teachings of those that came after, and so it went.
Secondly, the spirit of persecution that all of them expressed even to the time of the Puritans in the new world... Where did that come from? The scriptures? No. That was the way they were brought up and raised and taught within Catholicism. That spirit of persecution was one of the very last errors of the old religion to be cast aside, John Williams being a leading light in that matter.
Thirdly. There is one thing that all the reformers agreed on. Which was the point I was making in the beginning when I said that they discovered this through Bible study. They all agreed that either the Pope, the office of the Pope, or the papal system itself, was the Antichrist of scripture. This was the prime belief of the reformation, and though very few of them wanted to start up new churches but sought to reform Rome, (hence the name, reformers) it was in the providence and purposes of God that they come out of her as the case is even today. There is nothing in Catholicism that isn't tainted with error. It's too late and to far gone now to reform. Many Protestants believe that the Catholic Church at least has the basics right, but this is not so. Deeper study of scripture reveals that the Catholicism not often discussed in meetings and councils with reform churches today (such as with Lutherans and Presbyterians and Anglicans etc) and the agreements they make astutely avoid many discrepancies and disagreements for the sake of "unity". But it's a unity based on lies and a false hope that Catholicism has changed. Not so. The leopard still sports her spots and is proud of them. She still is a predator, and is a persecuting church.

 

[Marymog]

Your history portrayal is weak and watered at best, and historic revisionism at worst..

I quoted historical sources. If any of it is wrong, prove it.

 

[Marymog]

Mary, I am quite aware of the history of Protestantism. And you are correct in that the reformers certainly disagreed with one another even to the point of persecuting. But let me remind you of a couple of important points about this history lesson you have chosen to present to me.
First, every major reformer was at first Catholic. Many were priests, professors in Catholic universities, holding positions of respect and honor within Catholic institutions. Their teachings, as @BarnyFife previously said, were progressive. None of them had set down a full theology devoid of Catholic error. There was a learning curve as they extricated themselves from the system of religion that they grew up with, were educated by, and were led to believe was "truth". However, as they studied their Bibles, they discovered that what they had been taught and what they themselves were teaching, were wrong. But they didn't find everything at once. What Luther found Calvin built on. But unfortunately the Lutherans didn't like the new teachings of Calvin. And the Calvinists didn't like the new teachings of those that came after, and so it went.
Secondly, the spirit of persecution that all of them expressed even to the time of the Puritans in the new world... Where did that come from? The scriptures? No. That was the way they were brought up and raised and taught within Catholicism. That spirit of persecution was one of the very last errors of the old religion to be cast aside, John Williams being a leading light in that matter.
Thirdly. There is one thing that all the reformers agreed on. Which was the point I was making in the beginning when I said that they discovered this through Bible study. They all agreed that either the Pope, the office of the Pope, or the papal system itself, was the Antichrist of scripture. This was the prime belief of the reformation, and though very few of them wanted to start up new churches but sought to reform Rome, (hence the name, reformers) it was in the providence and purposes of God that they come out of her as the case is even today. There is nothing in Catholicism that isn't tainted with error. It's too late and to far gone now to reform. Many Protestants believe that the Catholic Church at least has the basics right, but this is not so. Deeper study of scripture reveals that the Catholicism not often discussed in meetings and councils with reform churches today (such as with Lutherans and Presbyterians and Anglicans etc) and the agreements they make astutely avoid many discrepancies and disagreements for the sake of "unity". But it's a unity based on lies and a false hope that Catholicism has changed. Not so. The leopard still sports her spots and is proud of them. She still is a predator, and is a persecuting church.

Hi Backlit,


Sooooo when you said to me "That's not correct." to my statement "Every original Reformer had a man who reformed him and then another man reformed him etc. etc" why are you now agreeing with me "that the reformers certainly disagreed with one another"?

Am I correct or not that the reformers disagreed with each other and reformed each others teachings? It seems from this posting you agree with me that I was correct...

Patient Mary

 

[Marymog]

And your prevailing point would be????

Well, if you quoted all of my post....instead of the 6 words you quoted.... you would see the "prevailing point".....

 

[Marymog]

It is not "I", "you" "them" or "they" which is to interpret scripture.

Really? Soooooo I won't be able to find any post from you where you give your interpretation of Scripture.....Oooops,,,,,I mean Gods interpretation of Scripture that you are kindly repeating on this forum?

Curious Mary

 

[ReChoired]

Well, if you quoted all of my post....instead of the 6 words you quoted.... you would see the "prevailing point".....

Nope still don't see it. It's why I quoted the most relevant part. The rest was just letters on screen.

 

[ReChoired]

I quoted historical sources. If any of it is wrong, prove it.

Wikipedia is not an historical source.

 

[ReChoired]

Really? Soooooo I won't be able to find any post from you where you give your interpretation of Scripture

Nope. Go ahead. Look, and when I quote the context of my post, you'll see.

.....Oooops,,,,,I mean Gods interpretation of Scripture that you are kindly repeating on this forum?

Hey, if that's how you desire to defeat an argument, is to simply straw man it, and lay waste to it, that is your prerogative.

Curious Mary

Curious? like Eve, eh?