BABYLON SCAMYLON

[brakelite]

The Church was established before one letter of the NT was penned... That scripture came forth from the Church, not the Church from scripture...

The church did NOT produce the Word of God. That is blasphemy.

Jesus' ONE sacrifice is presented

and repeatedly reoffered everyday hundreds of times a day all over the world. Or at least that is the pretence and intent. More blasphemy.

 

[epostle1]

The church did NOT produce the Word of God. That is blasphemy.

That is not what Philip James said. He said, "...scripture came forth from the Church..." The Church did not make scripture inspired, she canonized what was always inspired from the moment they were written. Canonization means the inspired scriptures were proven to be inspired, and made binding on all Christians. This complicated process took 4 councils and 3.5 centuries to complete. Denying the tradition of the episcopate that made compilation of the inspired books possible is contradictory, illogical and demands your standard false history. It's a straw man fallacy.

and repeatedly reoffered everyday hundreds of times a day all over the world. Or at least that is the pretence and intent. More blasphemy.

More straw man fallacies. "repeatedly reoffered" is a stupid anti-Catholic slogan that is as old as John Knox.

Exodus 12:14,17,24; cf. 24:8 – we see that the feast of the paschal lamb is a perpetual ordinance. It lasts forever. But it had not yet been fulfilled.

Exodus 29:38-39 – God commands the Israelites to “offer” (poieseis) the lambs upon the altar. The word “offer” is the same verb Jesus would use to institute the Eucharistic offering of Himself.

Lev. 7:15 – the Aaronic sacrifices absolutely had to be eaten in order to restore communion with God. These sacrifices all foreshadow the one eternal sacrifice which must also be eaten to restore communion with God. This is the Eucharist (from the Greek word “eukaristia” which means “thanksgiving”).

Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25 – Jesus is celebrating the Passover seder meal with the apostles which requires them to drink four cups of wine. But Jesus only presents the first three cups. He stops at the Third Cup (called “Cup of Blessing” – that is why Paul in 1 Cor. 10:16 uses the phrase “Cup of Blessing” to refer to the Eucharist – he ties the seder meal to the Eucharistic sacrifice). But Jesus conspicuously tells his apostles that He is omitting the Fourth Cup called the “Cup of Consummation.” The Gospel writers point this critical omission of the seder meal out to us to demonstrate that the Eucharistic sacrifice and the sacrifice on the cross are one and the same sacrifice, and the sacrifice would not be completed until Jesus drank the Fourth Cup on the cross.

Matt. 26:30; Mark 14:26 – they sung the great Hallel, which traditionally followed the Third Cup of the seder meal, but did not drink the Fourth Cup of Consummation. The Passover sacrifice had begun, but was not yet finished. It continued in the Garden of Gethsemane and was consummated on the cross.

Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 – the translation of Jesus’ words of consecration is “touto poieite tan eman anamnasin.” Jesus literally said “offer this as my memorial sacrifice.” The word “poiein” (do) refers to offering a sacrifice (see, e.g., Exodus 29:38-39, where God uses the same word – poieseis – regarding the sacrifice of the lambs on the altar). The word “anamnesis” (remembrance) also refers to a sacrifice which is really or actually made present in time by the power of God, as it reminds God of the actual event (see, e.g., Heb. 10:3; Num. 10:10). It is not just a memorial of a past event, but a past event made present in time.

Lev. 24:7 – the word “memorial” in Hebrew in the sacrificial sense is “azkarah” which means to actually make present (see Lev. 2:2,9,16;5:12;6:5; Num.5:26 where “azkarah” refers to sacrifices that are currently offered and thus present in time). Jesus’ instruction to offer the bread and wine (which He changed into His body and blood) as a “memorial offering” demonstrates that the offering of His body and blood is made present in time over and over again.

Num. 10:10 – in this verse, “remembrance” refers to a sacrifice, not just a symbolic memorial. So Jesus’ command to offer the memorial “in remembrance” of Him demonstrates that the memorial offering is indeed a sacrifice currently offered. It is a re-presentation of the actual sacrifice made present in time. It is as if the curtain of history is drawn and Calvary is made present to us.

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.

1 Cor. 10:16 – “the cup of blessing” or Third cup makes present the actual paschal sacrifice of Christ, the Lamb who was slain.

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).

Heb. 7:24 – Jesus holds His priesthood is forever because He continues forever, so His sacrificial offering is forever. He continues to offer His body and blood to us because He is forever our High Priest.

Philip James tried to tell you that the multitude of Masses around the world is ONE sacrifice of Bread and Wine. But to you, his text is invisible, and so is mine.

1 Corinthians 10:17
For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.

 

[brakelite]

That is not what Philip James said. He said, "...scripture came forth from the Church..." The Church did not make scripture inspired, she canonized what was always inspired from the moment they were written. Canonization means the inspired scriptures were proven to be inspired, and made binding on all Christians. This complicated process took 4 councils and 3.5 centuries to complete. Denying the tradition of the episcopate that made compilation of the inspired books possible is contradictory, illogical and demands your standard false history. It's a straw man fallacy.
More straw man fallacies. "repeatedly reoffered" is a stupid anti-Catholic slogan that is as old as John Knox.

Exodus 12:14,17,24; cf. 24:8 – we see that the feast of the paschal lamb is a perpetual ordinance. It lasts forever. But it had not yet been fulfilled.

Exodus 29:38-39 – God commands the Israelites to “offer” (poieseis) the lambs upon the altar. The word “offer” is the same verb Jesus would use to institute the Eucharistic offering of Himself.

Lev. 7:15 – the Aaronic sacrifices absolutely had to be eaten in order to restore communion with God. These sacrifices all foreshadow the one eternal sacrifice which must also be eaten to restore communion with God. This is the Eucharist (from the Greek word “eukaristia” which means “thanksgiving”).

Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25 – Jesus is celebrating the Passover seder meal with the apostles which requires them to drink four cups of wine. But Jesus only presents the first three cups. He stops at the Third Cup (called “Cup of Blessing” – that is why Paul in 1 Cor. 10:16 uses the phrase “Cup of Blessing” to refer to the Eucharist – he ties the seder meal to the Eucharistic sacrifice). But Jesus conspicuously tells his apostles that He is omitting the Fourth Cup called the “Cup of Consummation.” The Gospel writers point this critical omission of the seder meal out to us to demonstrate that the Eucharistic sacrifice and the sacrifice on the cross are one and the same sacrifice, and the sacrifice would not be completed until Jesus drank the Fourth Cup on the cross.

Matt. 26:30; Mark 14:26 – they sung the great Hallel, which traditionally followed the Third Cup of the seder meal, but did not drink the Fourth Cup of Consummation. The Passover sacrifice had begun, but was not yet finished. It continued in the Garden of Gethsemane and was consummated on the cross.

Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 – the translation of Jesus’ words of consecration is “touto poieite tan eman anamnasin.” Jesus literally said “offer this as my memorial sacrifice.” The word “poiein” (do) refers to offering a sacrifice (see, e.g., Exodus 29:38-39, where God uses the same word – poieseis – regarding the sacrifice of the lambs on the altar). The word “anamnesis” (remembrance) also refers to a sacrifice which is really or actually made present in time by the power of God, as it reminds God of the actual event (see, e.g., Heb. 10:3; Num. 10:10). It is not just a memorial of a past event, but a past event made present in time.

Lev. 24:7 – the word “memorial” in Hebrew in the sacrificial sense is “azkarah” which means to actually make present (see Lev. 2:2,9,16;5:12;6:5; Num.5:26 where “azkarah” refers to sacrifices that are currently offered and thus present in time). Jesus’ instruction to offer the bread and wine (which He changed into His body and blood) as a “memorial offering” demonstrates that the offering of His body and blood is made present in time over and over again.

Num. 10:10 – in this verse, “remembrance” refers to a sacrifice, not just a symbolic memorial. So Jesus’ command to offer the memorial “in remembrance” of Him demonstrates that the memorial offering is indeed a sacrifice currently offered. It is a re-presentation of the actual sacrifice made present in time. It is as if the curtain of history is drawn and Calvary is made present to us.

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.

1 Cor. 10:16 – “the cup of blessing” or Third cup makes present the actual paschal sacrifice of Christ, the Lamb who was slain.

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).

Heb. 7:24 – Jesus holds His priesthood is forever because He continues forever, so His sacrificial offering is forever. He continues to offer His body and blood to us because He is forever our High Priest.

Philip James tried to tell you that the multitude of Masses around the world is ONE sacrifice of Bread and Wine. But to you, his text is invisible, and so is mine.

1 Corinthians 10:17
For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.

View attachment 3576

You claimed my post was a strawman argument, then profusely defended the very thing I claimed. That the mass/eucharist is a re-offering of the one sacrifice made on Calvary.
Quote: So Jesus’ command to offer the memorial “in remembrance” of Him demonstrates that the memorial offering is indeed a sacrifice currently offered. It is a re-presentation of the actual sacrifice made present in time.
^^^^What I said^^^^

 

[Philip James]

They were wrong. The physical real literal Son of God is in heaven. Not on a Catholic altar or shut up in a box.

Perhaps you should reread the story of the multiplication of the loaves and fish...

If you think that ALL of the apostolic communities are wrong and that 2000 years of the witness of our brothers and sisters is worthless then im quite sure my own experiences cant convince you...

May the Lord bless you.
Peace!

 

[epostle1]

You claimed my post was a strawman argument, then profusely defended the very thing I claimed. That the mass/eucharist is a re-offering of the one sacrifice made on Calvary.
Quote: So Jesus’ command to offer the memorial “in remembrance” of Him demonstrates that the memorial offering is indeed a sacrifice currently offered. It is a re-presentation of the actual sacrifice made present in time.
^^^^What I said^^^^

No, this is what you said:

and repeatedly reoffered everyday hundreds of times a day all over the world. Or at least that is the pretence and intent. More blasphemy.

Post #341
Playing word games is standard SDA methodology. I went into sufficient detail explaining the meaning of re-presented. ONE sacrifice, ONE Bread cannot possibly be "re-offered". Your word, not mine. It won't matter how many pages of text I use, you cannot accept the mystery of the Eucharist for two reasons:
1) my text to you is invisible except cherry picked phrases.
2) understanding the Eucharist at the most basic level requires supernatural faith, not natural human understanding.
I can proof text (2), I cannot proof text (1)

​

 

[Philip James]

The church did NOT produce the Word of God. That is blasphemy.

You throw that word around way to cavalierly... Consider 'by the measure you measure'

And nice twist on my words to boot..

Now let me ask you, were Peter, Paul, John, James, Jude, Matthew, Mark, and Luke members of the already established Church when they wrote their letters and Gospels?

My statement stands.

Peace!

 

[brakelite]

You throw that word around way to cavalierly... Consider 'by the measure you measure'

And nice twist on my words to boot..

Now let me ask you, were Peter, Paul, John, James, Jude, Matthew, Mark, and Luke members of the already established Church when they wrote their letters and Gospels?

My statement stands.

Peace!

The source and author of scripture was God. The church and/or the members thereof was merely a vessel for His purposes in spreading the gospel. But it was the word itself, through Jesus Christ, that gave birth to the church. Give God the glory.

 

[epostle1]

The source and author of scripture was God. The church and/or the members thereof was merely a vessel for His purposes in spreading the gospel. But it was the word itself, through Jesus Christ, that gave birth to the church. Give God the glory.

What "word" are you talking about? The written word alone? A book that took 4 centuries to be fully realized "that gave birth to the church"???

The Church is “of Christ”; Christ is not “of the Church”; let alone its “child.” Those categories are biblically ludicrous and indeed almost blasphemous.

The truth gives God glory, not Bible origin fantasies.

 

[brakelite]

What "word" are you talking about? The written word alone? A book that took 4 centuries to be fully realized "that gave birth to the church"???

The Church is “of Christ”; Christ is not “of the Church”; let alone its “child.” Those categories are biblically ludicrous and indeed almost blasphemous.

The truth gives God glory, not Bible origin fantasies.

You need to read your post again. You contradicted yourself.
First you claim the church gave us the word, then you claim Christ gave is the church. Scripture says in the beginning was the word.

 

[Philip James]

The church and/or the members thereof was merely a vessel for His purposes in spreading the gospel

Merely a vessel? You're talking about the bride of Christ.

You need to let go of the man made traditions that have bewitched you..

May the Lord have mercy on your soul.

 

[brakelite]

Merely a vessel? You're talking about the bride of Christ.

You need to let go of the man made traditions that have bewitched you..

May the Lord have mercy on your soul.

KJV Acts 9
15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

The sum of the church is no greater than its individual members, like Paul above, a chosen vessel.

 

[epostle1]

KJV Acts 9
15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

The sum of the church is no greater than its individual members, like Paul above, a chosen vessel.

In Acts 9, Jesus sent Saul to a representative of the Church. Ananias, who had the function of a bishop, prayed for Saul's sight, and baptized him. Having a vision and speaking with Jesus marked his conversion, but not the beginning of his ministry. First he had to see Ananias, a representative of the Church, before his ministry began.
Paul was subject to the Church, and later, part of the Magisterium at the same time.

The structure of the Church is modeled after the structure of the earthly Davidic Kingdom, not The Borg.

 

[brakelite]

In Acts 9, Jesus sent Saul to a representative of the Church. Ananias, who had the function of a bishop, prayed for Saul's sight, and baptized him. Having a vision and speaking with Jesus marked his conversion, but not the beginning of his ministry. First he had to see Ananias, a representative of the Church, before his ministry began.
Paul was subject to the Church, and later, part of the Magisterium at the same time.

The structure of the Church is modeled after the structure of the earthly Davidic Kingdom, not The Borg.

Whatever, but the word still preceded the church. Not the other way around in order to support your frantic attempts to justify Papal self-proclaimed authority over all Christendom. And the church's only King is Jesus. Not your pope. Read Matthew 10. Especially vs 41-45.

 

[epostle1]

You couldn't touch my irrefutable post #352 (scroll up) so you reached into your bag of dirty tricks for the worst insult you could find, for the maximum derailing effect, isn't that right ThePasteBookEnds?

Roman Catholicism must confound these scriptures and time that it may exalt 'Mary', because in reality, Roman Catholicism's apparitional 'Mary' is really Satan masquerading as a messenger (angel) of Light (2 Corinthians 11:14).​

Matthew 12:31
7 Protestant Commentaries here

Mary is an ordinary human being with extraordinary holiness, a holiness by God's intervention. Mary did not churn up her holiness on her own power. She does not do anything without God. Miracles are attributed to her intervention to God, not Mary herself. This is basic Mariology 101. If Mary does not have God's ear in heaven, then she didn't have God's (Jesus) ear on earth either, which is absurd. You are the one granting Mary superpowers, not Catholics. Worse, you give credit to satan what the Holy Spirit does. This degree of blasphemy is dangerous to your soul. Invincible ignorance is your only defense.

 

[epostle1]

Biblical Evidence for Marian Apparitions

By analogy, biblical accounts of “appearances” or visions or dreams of those who have died, are of the same essential nature as a Marian apparition. Angels (i.e., also creatures like men) might also be included in such a survey, but stories of angels are relatively well-known, and for the sake of closer analogy and brevity, I have selected only passages with men or the appearance of men.

Several of these passages involve foretelling of the future, in a manner not unlike that of the apparitions at Fatima in 1917. And several actual historical figures are named as appearing after death (Samuel, Onias, Jeremiah, Moses, and Elijah). All passages are RSV (italics for emphasis added).
1 Samuel 28:12-14 1 Samuel 28:19
Ezekiel 40:3-4
Daniel 8:15-17, Daniel 8:19
Daniel 10:4-7
Sirach 46:19-20
2 Maccabees 5:2, 2 Maccabees 5:44
2 Maccabees 10:29
2 Maccabees 15:11-14
Matthew 17:3-4
Matthew 27:52-53
Acts 16:9

I don't care if you dismiss Sirach and Maccabees as uninspired, but to pretend they are not part of Jewish history is a form of Antisemitism, IMO.

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/darmstrong/biblical-evidence-for-marian-apparitions

 

[Davy]

Biblical Evidence for Marian Apparitions

By analogy, biblical accounts of “appearances” or visions or dreams of those who have died, are of the same essential nature as a Marian apparition. Angels (i.e., also creatures like men) might also be included in such a survey, but stories of angels are relatively well-known, and for the sake of closer analogy and brevity, I have selected only passages with men or the appearance of men.

Several of these passages involve foretelling of the future, in a manner not unlike that of the apparitions at Fatima in 1917. And several actual historical figures are named as appearing after death (Samuel, Onias, Jeremiah, Moses, and Elijah). All passages are RSV (italics for emphasis added).
1 Samuel 28:12-14 1 Samuel 28:19
Ezekiel 40:3-4
Daniel 8:15-17, Daniel 8:19
Daniel 10:4-7
Sirach 46:19-20
2 Maccabees 5:2, 2 Maccabees 5:44
2 Maccabees 10:29
2 Maccabees 15:11-14
Matthew 17:3-4
Matthew 27:52-53
Acts 16:9

I don't care if you dismiss Sirach and Maccabees as uninspired, but to pretend they are not part of Jewish history is a form of Antisemitism, IMO.

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/darmstrong/biblical-evidence-for-marian-apparitions

I'll say it.

The books of Sirach and Maccabees are uninspired, and not part of God's Word. And it is NOT anti-Semitic to say that.

The case with Saul in 1 Samuel 28, is that God had departed from him, so Saul went to the witch of Endor who had a familiar spirit to seek answers. Saul got the woman to conjur up the spirit of Samuel who was then dead. Samuel supposedly appeared and did tell him what would befall him and Israel the next day. However, that was a familiar spirit of the woman talking, NOT the dead prophet Samuel.

We are not to mess with conjuring up spirits, nor crystal balls, Tarot cards, tea leaves, etc., and the Jews have a history of doing those things, which is against God's will, and that is fact, not anti-Semitism.

 

[epostle1]

I'll say it.

The books of Sirach and Maccabees are uninspired, and not part of God's Word. And it is NOT anti-Semitic to say that.

No, it isn't anti-Semitic to say that. . That is not what I said. I said " to pretend they are not part of Jewish history is a form of Antisemitism, IMO." So I will ask you specifically, since you raised a straw man: Do you deny the historical information found in what you call "uninspired books"? Perhaps I should have been more precise, but I was brief because we are not discussing the Dueterocanicals. When you can find a 66 book Biblical codex before the 14th century, then we can discuss what is not inspired.

The case with Saul in 1 Samuel 28, is that God had departed from him, so Saul went to the witch of Endor who had a familiar spirit to seek answers. Saul got the woman to conjur up the spirit of Samuel who was then dead. Samuel supposedly appeared and did tell him what would befall him and Israel the next day. However, that was a familiar spirit of the woman talking, NOT the dead prophet Samuel.
We are not to mess with conjuring up spirits, nor crystal balls, Tarot cards, tea leaves, etc., and the Jews have a history of doing those things, which is against God's will, and that is fact, not anti-Semitism.

Does your example of Saul in 1 Samuel 28 disprove actual historical figures named as appearing after death: Samuel, Onias, Jeremiah, Moses, and Elijah? Are they all of the occult too?
Again, do Protestant scholars deny the historical value of your 7 missing books?
Does everything have to be inspired in order to be accepted as history?
The main message found in every Marian apparition throughout the centuries can be condensed to this:
"Repent and turn to my Son."
...often accompanied by conversions, reversions and miracles. Is that of the occult too??? You can't have it both ways. Obviously, 1 Samuel 28 cannot be a yardstick to disprove ALL Biblical cases of apparitions. Marian apparitions have Biblical precedent, you should be careful you don't give credit to satan for what God does.

The honor Catholics give to Mary (hyperdulia) is the same kind of honor we give to other human beings, (dulia) just more of it. We worship God (latria) and God alone.
Mary is an ordinary human being of extraordinary holiness. Because she is an ordinary human being, there is nothing she can do without God. Nothing. Mary doesn't answer prayers, only God can. Understanding Marian theology is not an easy task.