Was Peter thr Rock that the Church was built upon?

[Christina]

Ehem, one of the things I learned in Romania is that Eastern Christianity is a complex movement, some of their groups being in communion with Rome. :|

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Catholic_Churches



I am under the impression that this is indeed a major matter of arguments around here.

Well I am sorry for that kestrel that was never the intent of this site and Im sorry it does seem to have come to that
I suggest you take it up with Hammerstone this site was intended to be about God and the bible not about mens religions ...

 

[EAHARA]

Well now that is the point you arent discussing the bible you discussing your religion traditions this is a non denominatiuonal site for a reason ..that means we discuss the Bible not my religion is better than your religion ... Well I dont know your defention of ballistic :lol: but I do take Gods word serious ...I dont take this argument of which of mens traditions is better very serious.

Your argument falls on its face for several reasons. First of all, the quotes I made were from a Protestant theologian, so it could hardly be called "my tradition". Now, true, I am using it to support the understanding of the Bible that I have. Secondly, I am discussing the Bible and the issue of who the Church is built upon and where the authority in the Church lies. Thirdly, it is not a discussion of "my religion is better than yours". It is a discussion in which we are trying to come to Truth. Somehow, that seems very threatening to you, judging from your reactions when anyone challenges your preconcieved notions.

The Bible is not a self-explanatory book. Many passages are quite clear, yet others are obscure and have been labored over for years by men far superior in intellect than either you or I. Whenever someone says to me, as a Catholic, "You don't believe the Word of God." they are really saying "You don't believe MY interpretation of the Word of God." Of course, the very next question one must ask is this

"Why is YOUR interpretation the correct one? Because you say so?"

We require more proof than that.

There are many Truths in the Bible which have been unfolded from a number of different sources, both Protestant and Catholic. Ray Sutton's work on the covenant of God is a basic work on understanding covenant principles, even though he makes on every glaring error in that he defines a covenant as a political contract (which is the standard Calvinist understanding) rather than as a marriage (found in Ezek. 16:8). That you reject even any interest in what he has to say shows that you are not interested in learning, in studying, in comparing understandings, etc. That is not the attitude of someone who is humble and wants to learn.

Since the Bible is book of covenant and our salvation is defined as a covenant ("This is the new covenant in my Blood" -- Jesus) then you should be willing to study and understand what a covenant is, how it works, and what are the ramifications for us in how we live out our lives.

 

[EAHARA]

Your Scripture references are not only irrelevant to this discussion, they have nothing whatsoever to do with your assertion. The passages in question have to do with the way in which the Levitical sacrificial system is a pattern or type of things in Heaven, not the Church. What you have engaged in here is a shameful example of pure eisegesis.

Let's stop and think about this from a couple of angles. The passages in Hebrews state that the worship which God established with Moses was a "shadow and type" of that which is in Heaven. When any pagan observed a Jewish worship, he was being witnessed to of the Truth. Why then would God allow us to worship in a manner which is not a shadow and type of the heavenly reality? That makes no sense.

It makes no sense because the reality has come in Christ. Our worship should be an extension of the reality which is in Christ. And that reality is found in fulfilling the type of the Old Covenant. We first see Jesus doing this as He makes the type become the reality in the Upper Room. He changes the Passover, which points forward prophetically to our union with Christ, to the Eucharist. In the Eucharist, we actually enter into the heavenly reality of the eternal union with Christ. The Eucharist is both foreshadowing and reality at the same time. That which takes place in Heaven -- the saints experiencing union with Christ -- becomes real in the Eucharist.

Why then would I want to participate in a so called "Lord's Supper" which, while bringing to mind the memory of His Passion, denies the heavenly reality of our union with Him by being explained as only a "bare memorial meal?"

Churches should look like Heaven also -- that is, they should resemble a castle where the Great King of the universe lives. A barren assembly with whitewashed walls hardly speaks to the immense glory of the heavenly Kingdom.

There is no discontinuation of the sacrificial system. We still have a high priest to offer Yom Kippur in the "tabernacle not made with hands" (Heb. 9:11) and we still have mediatorial priests who offer the Sacrifice for our personal sins. There is no indication that God intended that the priestly system, which He Himself established as part of the true worship and typology of Heaven, was to be discontinued. In fact, the fact that the high priesthood continues is evidence that the priestly system has continued.

Ummmm....yes, I do think we are hijacking the original intent of the OP. Perhaps a new thread on this subject??

 

[Christina]

Well see there in is your misconception there is no controversy except in your traditions

Psa 28:1 [[[A Psalm] of David.]] Unto thee will I cry, O LORD my rock; be not silent to me: lest, [if] thou be silent to me, I become like them that go down into the pit.
Psa 42:9 I will say unto God my rock, Why hast thou forgotten me? why go I mourning because of the oppression of the enemy?
Psa 62:2 He only [is] my rock and my salvation; [he is] my defence; I shall not be greatly moved.
Psa 62:7 In God [is] my salvation and my glory: the rock of my strength, [and] my refuge, [is] in God.
Psa 78:35 And they remembered that God [was] their rock, and the high God their redeemer.
and there are many more ....

He is our rock and Christ is God we have but ONE there is only an disagreement because you want to claim something that is not true based in your traditions but you can not accept gods Word as true because you can only accept the parts of the Bible you are told you can
so debating it is pointless unless one accepts the whole of the Word is as God declares it His inspired Word .. but you dont so having a discussion is about your traditions ...

Anyone who only accepts as truth the parts they believe and denys the rest isnt interested in Gods Word but hanging on to their traditions they simply deny what is contradictory as fact so its a pointless argument of religious traditions ..The fact you quote men catholic or protestant is of little importance you cannot prove it in Gods Word because your view is contradicted you just refuse to
believe Gods Words

 

[EAHARA]

Ehem, one of the things I learned in Romania is that Eastern Christianity is a complex movement, some of their groups being in communion with Rome.

Yes, that is correct. If you go to our parish and no one tells you what we are, you will believe us to be Greek or Russian Orthodox. The look, the smells, the feel, the chants are all the same. Yet we, as practitioners of Orthodoxy, are fully in communion with Rome.

 

[Nomad]

There is no discontinuation of the sacrificial system. We still have a high priest to offer Yom Kippur in the "tabernacle not made with hands" (Heb. 9:11) and we still have mediatorial priests who offer the Sacrifice for our personal sins. There is no indication that God intended that the priestly system, which He Himself established as part of the true worship and typology of Heaven, was to be discontinued. In fact, the fact that the high priesthood continues is evidence that the priestly system has continued.

I'm afraid that is incorrect. Not only did Christ offer a perfect sacrifice once for all time as the Scripture I have provided below clearly indicates, there is no such thing as a New Testament sacerdotal priesthood. There are qualifications listed in Scripture for presbuteroi/episcopoi, but no sacerdotal priests. No such office is ever mentioned with good reason. See below.

Heb 10:11 And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.
Heb 10:12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God,
Heb 10:13 waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet.
Heb 10:14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

Heb 9:11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation)
Heb 9:12 he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.

Heb 9:24 For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.
Heb 9:25 Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own,
Heb 9:26 for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
Heb 9:27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment,
Heb 9:28 so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.

 

[Nomad]

Yes, that is correct. If you go to our parish and no one tells you what we are, you will believe us to be Greek or Russian Orthodox. The look, the smells, the feel, the chants are all the same. Yet we, as practitioners of Orthodoxy, are fully in communion with Rome.

If you are in fact in "full communion" with Rome, (something EO is not), then that makes you some sort of hybrid schismatic, and yet you feel justified in taking shots at Protestants. Eddie, I'm afraid that you continue to be a big ball of contradiction.

 

[kestrel]

If you are in fact in "full communion" with Rome, (something EO is not), then that makes you some sort of hybrid schismatic, and yet you feel justified in taking shots at Protestants. Eddie, I'm afraid that you continue to be a big ball of contradiction.

The Eastern Rite Churches are not, in any way, considered schismatic by the Vatican. Trust me, I used to teach the subjection of Catholic Religion and Ethics in High School. Not to brag or anything, but I know my stuff.

DECREE ON THE CATHOLIC CHURCHES
OF THE EASTERN RITE
ORIENTALIUM ECCLESIARUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964



PREAMBLE

1. The Catholic Church holds in high esteem the institutions, liturgical rites, ecclesiastical traditions and the established standards of the Christian life of the Eastern Churches, for in them, distinguished as they are for their venerable antiquity, there remains conspicuous the tradition that has been handed down from the Apostles through the Fathers (1) and that forms part of the divinely revealed and undivided heritage of the universal Church. This Sacred Ecumenical Council, therefore, in its care for the Eastern Churches which bear living witness to this tradition, in order that they may flourish and with new apostolic vigor execute the task entrusted to them, has determined to lay down a number of principles, in addition to those which refer to the universal Church; all else is remitted to the care of the Eastern synods and of the Holy See.

THE INDIVIDUAL CHURCHES OR RITES

2. The Holy Catholic Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ, is made up of the faithful who are organically united in the Holy Spirit by the same faith, the same sacraments and the same government and who, combining together into various groups which are held together by a hierarchy, form separate Churches or Rites. Between these there exists an admirable bond of union, such that the variety within the Church in no way harms its unity; rather it manifests it, for it is the mind of the Catholic Church that each individual Church or Rite should retain its traditions whole and entire and likewise that it should adapt its way of life to the different needs of time and place.(2)

3. These individual Churches, whether of the East or the West, although they differ somewhat among themselves in rite (to use the current phrase), that is, in liturgy, ecclesiastical discipline, and spiritual heritage, are, nevertheless, each as much as the others, entrusted to the pastoral government of the Roman Pontiff, the divinely appointed successor of St. Peter in primacy over the universal Church. They are consequently of equal dignity, so that none of them is superior to the others as regards rite and they enjoy the same rights and are under the same obligations, also in respect of preaching the Gospel to the whole world (cf. Mark 16, 15) under the guidance of the Roman Pontiff.

4. Means should be taken therefore in every part of the world for the protection and advancement of all the individual Churches and, to this end, there should be established parishes and a special hierarchy where the spiritual good of the faithful demands it. The hierarchs of the different individual Churches with jurisdiction in one and the same territory should, by taking common counsel in regular meetings, strive to promote unity of action and with common endeavor to sustain common tasks, so as better to further the good of religion and to safeguard more effectively the ordered way of life of the clergy.(3)

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_orientalium-ecclesiarum_en.html

 

[Nomad]

The Eastern Rite Churches are not, in any way, considered schismatic by the Vatican. Trust me, I used to teach the subjection of Catholic Religion and Ethics in High School. Not to brag or anything, but I know my stuff.

The operative phrase in my last post is "full communion." Eastern Orthodox churches are not in "full communion" with Rome. If Eddie's congregation is, then it's Roman Catholic, not Eastern Orthodox, regardless of how much they mimick Eastern "rites." Evidently he belongs to one of these small groups that consider themselves Orthodox, but who desire "full communion" with Rome. This makes his congregation schismatic by definition. I said nothing about the way in which the Vatican would view such a congregation. The way in which post Vatican 2 Rome views other communions is irrelevant here. It's enough to realize that from 1054 AD through Trent, Rome would have never countenanced such an inclusivist notion.

 

[EAHARA]

If you are in fact in "full communion" with Rome, (something EO is not), then that makes you some sort of hybrid schismatic, and yet you feel justified in taking shots at Protestants. Eddie, I'm afraid that you continue to be a big ball of contradiction.

My, my! You are just a warm, fuzzy little ball of love, aren't ya?

Actually, what we are is exactly what the Eastern Church was before the schism.

I'm afraid that is incorrect. Not only did Christ offer a perfect sacrifice once for all time as the Scripture I have provided below clearly indicates, there is no such thing as a New Testament sacerdotal priesthood. There are qualifications listed in Scripture for presbuteroi/episcopoi, but no sacerdotal priests. No such office is ever mentioned with good reason. See below.

Heb 10:11 And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.
Heb 10:12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God,
Heb 10:13 waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet.
Heb 10:14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

Heb 9:11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation)
Heb 9:12 he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.

Heb 9:24 For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.
Heb 9:25 Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own,
Heb 9:26 for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
Heb 9:27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment,
Heb 9:28 so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.

You need to do a deeper study of these verses in Hebrews. They are speaking of the office of the high priest -- specifically that of our Great High Priest -- and not of the Levitical priesthood. Notice the verse that I bolded for you.

The sacrifice which was "done once and forever finished" is that of YOM KIPPUR. Hebrews shows that Jesus is the Great High Priest who has replaced the high priesthood and made a once and forever done eternal YOM KIPPUR in the "tabernacle not made with hands."

Question: Do you understand the purpose of YOM KIPPUR? May I have your answer to this please?

 

[EAHARA]

The operative phrase in my last post is "full communion." Eastern Orthodox churches are not in "full communion" with Rome. If Eddie's congregation is, then it's Roman Catholic, not Eastern Orthodox, regardless of how much they mimick Eastern "rites." Evidently he belongs to one of these small groups that consider themselves Orthodox, but who desire "full communion" with Rome. This makes his congregation schismatic by definition. I said nothing about the way in which the Vatican would view such a congregation. The way in which post Vatican 2 Rome views other communions is irrelevant here. It's enough to realize that from 1054 AD through Trent, Rome would have never countenanced such an inclusivist notion.

I find it considerably interesting to speak with people who constantly feel as if they must act like experts on every subject they approach, yet who's posts show that they lack even a rudimentary understanding of the subject matter.

Rome did in fact countenance the "inclusivist notion" Our churches were brought back into communion with Rome at the Union of Brest in 1595 and the Union of Uzuhrod in 1643. We do not "mimick" anything, and quite frankly, those in the Eastern Catholic Church who labored to maintain the purity of Orthodox worship under the pressures of Roman Bishops and Communists who persecuted them would find your statement highly offensive.

 

[Nomad]

You need to do a deeper study of these verses in Hebrews. They are speaking of the office of the high priest -- specifically that of our Great High Priest -- and not of the Levitical priesthood. Notice the verse that I bolded for you.

No sir. They are speaking of the way Christ fulfilled the Levitical priesthood and sacrifices. Notice the verses that I bolded and underlined for you. The point I was making was that the sacerdotal priesthood and sacrifices ceased with Christ--something you claim has not ceased. The passages I've provided contradict you. Nice attempt at a dodge though.

Heb 10:11 And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.
Heb 10:12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God,
Heb 10:13 waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet.
Heb 10:14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

Heb 9:11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation)
Heb 9:12 he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.

Heb 9:24 For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.
Heb 9:25 Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own,
Heb 9:26 for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
Heb 9:27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment,
Heb 9:28 so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.

 

[Nomad]

Rome did in fact countenance the "inclusivist notion" Our churches were brought back into communion with Rome at the Union of Brest in 1595 and the Union of Uzuhrod in 1643.

Eddie I'm growing weary of your dodges. Both Brest and Uzhhorod came after Trent, which is why I said "1054 AD through Trent." Even at that, neither embraced all of Eastern Orthodoxy, so your use of "our churches" in the quote above is a gross exaggeration.

 

[jerryjohnson]

Eddie I'm growing weary of your dodges. Both Brest and Uzhhorod came after Trent, which is why I said "1054 AD through Trent." Even at that, neither embraced all of Eastern Orthodoxy, so your use of "our churches" in the quote above is a gross exaggeration.

I'm weary of this whole subject.

 

[EAHARA]

No sir. They are speaking of the way Christ fulfilled the Levitical priesthood and sacrifices. Notice the verses that I bolded and underlined for you. The point I was making was that the sacerdotal priesthood and sacrifices ceased with Christ--something you claim has not ceased. The passages I've provided contradict you. Nice attempt at a dodge though.

You are not looking at the context. It is speaking of Christ as the Great High Priest. I wrote this on another board. It is applicable to you also. (The two quotes in black bold are from the person with whom I was debating this point).

It says no such thing, and the verses you quote are taken out of context. You have failed to recognize the overarching theme of the book of Hebrews In order to "get it" you will have to drop your Protestant presuppositional errors and go back to Hebrews 9 to "set the stage" properly for the verses you gave me.

Heb 9: 6 When everything had been arranged like this, the priests entered regularly into the outer room to carry on their ministry. 7 But only the high priest entered the inner room, and that only once a year, and never without blood, which he offered for himself and for the sins the people had committed in ignorance. 8 The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place was not yet made manifest as long as the first tabernacle was still standing.

What is the "most holy place". It is the very presence of God, which was lost for all mankind by the disobedience of Adam. Mankind in the OT was separated from God and even those who lived righteous lives could not go directly into the presence of God (Heaven) but were sent to a waiting place called Paradise. This is the same place the scriptures speak of when they speak of Christ descending to the lower realms and preaching to those who were held there.

The fact that the high priest alone could go into the Holiest of All was symbolic of the fact that mankind is separated from God.

Heb 9:11 When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. 12 He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption.

Here we begin to unearth the true meaning of Hebrews 9 and 10. Jesus is our Great High Priest. He enters into the "tabernacle that is not man-made" as our Great High Priest. This is a direct reference back to verse 7 where it speaks of the high priest entering the earthly tabernacle once a year.

What then was Jesus doing if He is the Great High Priest and is copying the once a year sacrifice of the earthly high priest?

He is performing YOM KIPPUR!! He is establishing once and forever the New Covenant with is made with the Church consisting of Jew and Gentile. That is what YOM KIPPUR is -- it is the corporate covenant offering which forgives the sins of the nation. (Lev. 16)

Here is the KEY, sir. Please read this carefully and think about it:

IT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FORGIVENESS OF PERSONAL SINS!!!

NOTHING!!!

You are quoting a passage which deals with Christ's work as our Great High Priest, which means He is offering YOM KIPPUR for the "new nation" (Matthew 21:43) which is the Church, and trying to make that apply to our personal and individual sins!!


Quote:

Heb. 9 24 For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence. 25 Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26 Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Do you see those two words -- "every year?" That is PROOF that what I am talking about is the truth. This whole passage is concerned with a new and better YOM KIPPUR offered by our Great High Priest in the "tabernacle not made with hands" in Heaven. It has to do with the establishment of the New Covenant which undoes the wretched fall of Adam, restores mankind to God, and, as verse 26 says, does away with sin forever because this YOM KIPPUR cannot fail, therefore, sin will no longer be able to keep mankind separated from God.

So then, knowing that this passage is about YOM KIPPUR offered by our Great High Priest, what is the REAL MEANING of the verses you so mangled and tried to use to prove your false Protestant assertion?

Quote:
Heb 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

What does this word "sanctified" mean? It means that someone or something is put in right relationship to God. In this context then, we are indeed once and for all put in right relationship as a corporate people by the offering of YOM KIPPUR by the Great High Priest. Mankind is reunited to God IN CHRIST. This is speaking of how there is no longer any separation between mankind and God. That is why Christ went to preach to the spirits who were being held in captivity after His death. He went to tell them that He had succeeded, that He was going to the Father to offer YOM KIPPUR, and that they would soon be released and with the Father because of this. All believers who died after this YOM KIPPUR was offered went then directly into the presence of God because there was now a permanent YOM KIPPUR offering which establishes the New Covenant and reunites God and man.

Heb 10:11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

What does this mean "can never take away sins?" Does that mean that the OT offerings did not take away sins? I had a Fundamentalist tell me that. What a load of hoooey. That was precisely the reason those offerings were offered for sin. If the Passover had not forgiven the sins of the people who offered it, they would have ALL DIED!!! Such thoughtlessness when handling the Word of God!!

It means that the daily offerings, which were offered for the personal sins of the people, could not take away the corporate sins of the people as a nation. So the writer is showing that not only YOM KIPPUR didn't take away the sin of mankind and reunite mankind to God, but even the offering of an individual could only forgive his personal sin. It could not restore him to full relationship with God because of the sin of Adam, which is why the OT believers had to wait in Paradise. They were forgiven of their personal sins, but the sin of mankind still had them separated from God.

Heb 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

One sacrifice for sins. Which sins? Remember, Christ Jesus is acting as our Great High Priest. Therefore, He is offering YOM KIPPUR and not offering for personal sins and this verse must and can only mean one sacrifice for the sins of mankind viewed corporately. In a real sense, the first sacrifice for sin was for the sin of Adam (Aw-dahm or "mankind"). This is another reason that Jesus is called "the Last Adam" He is the new mankind Who is covenantally related to God by the YOM KIPPUR He offers in His very own Blood. All those who wish to leave the cursed and condemned mankind of Adam must "cut covenant" with Jesus and be baptized into Him (Rom. 6:3 and Gal 3:27)

Quote:Christ was sacrificed for our sins ONCE and this does not have to be repeated yearly, or weekly, or daily as in the RCC heresy of the Mass.

No sir, I have just shown you that Jesus was sacrificed once for the corporate sins of mankind. I have shown you from scripture that He is the Great High Priest and that the sacrifice being discussed in Hebrews therefore MUST BE YOM KIPPUR!! It can be nothing else because only high priests offered YOM KIPPUR once a year.

The Mass is the ceremony of covenant renewal. If you knew anything at all about covenant, how one is made, how covenant operates, and how it is renewed when it is broken, you would realize this. Sadly, 99% of Protestants and Catholics don't know a thing about covenant and when asked about it, start to blink their eyes rapidly and look confused. Yet it is the MAIN THEME of the Holy Scriptures, beginning in Genesis and going all the way to Revelation. Indeed, as one theologian has said "The Bible is a book of covenant".

Quote: Some one is blinded, that is for sure, but to say that the book of Hebrews declares that Jesus must be offered over and over again in the Mass or Eucharist is to deny the message of Hebrews.

The blindness is on the part of all Protestants who believe in the fantasy science fiction called "forensic justification". This idea that once you "accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior" (another phrase nowhere found in scripture!!), God makes a legal and forensic declaration that you are forgiven, declared innocent, and all your sins, past, present, and future, are paid for by this legal act.

It is a complete fiction nowhere supported in scripture.

When you sin, you must have an offering and you must bring that offering to God, with your repentance. We have an offering which was done one time. It is the Lamb of God. He is both the YOM KIPPUR offering for the Church, meaning that the Church will never fail, no matter how bad Her leaders are, because we have a perfect Advocate in Heaven offering a perfect YOM KIPPUR for the sins of the Church, and He is our Lamb to offer to God.

We are not re-crucifying Christ. We are presenting that eternal and done sacrifice to God so that our sins can be washed away. In the mystery of God, that offering has been since before time:

Quote: Rev. 13: 8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

So you realize what is being said here? In God's timeless Heaven, the sacrifice has always been. It is still there today, for since God does not see time as we do, the event in history called The Crucifixion, is still present before His face. It is ever there to pay for our sins and the sins of the people (YOM KIPPUR). We simply make it present on the altar so that we can renew our covenant with Jesus through His Blood. This is basic covenant.

I suggest, as I have done with so many here, that you go online to the PROTESTANT WEBSITE I.C.E. freebooks and look up THAT YOU MAY PROSPER by Ray Sutton. This is one of the best foundational books on covenant I have ever seen. It will give you a solid foundation in how covenant works. Then get Scott Hahn's book A FATHER WHO KEEPS HIS PROMISES to flesh out the proper reality of how this works out in our lives.

Until you get a grip on covenant, you will not understand the Mass at all.

BTW -- One more thing. The reason that Hebrews, Galatians, and other books of the Bible deal with this is because there were Judaizers running around indicating that unless one was circumcised, one was not truly a believer and really didn't have eternal life, but was being fooled. They were still trusting in circumcision to get them into Heaven. Hebrews compares the YOM KIPPUR of the Old Covenant (and circumcision which they trusted in) with the eternal YOM KIPPUR and work of the Great High Priest, Christ Jesus, and shows that what He has done has completely done away with trusting in Jewish ritual.

Your post makes it clear that you A.) do not have any sort of handle upon Jewish ritual B.) do not understand YOM KIPPUR and what it did C.) do not understand covenant. As I posted, get Ray Sutton's book and read it. Very important to understand covenant properly.

I'm weary of this whole subject.

That is a shame because it is a great topic and very important to understand!

 

[mjrhealth]

If you all left your religious ways, tossed the bible aside, and remebred just one thing, That Jesus Christ is Lord, that He died for all your sins, and that He, " Jesus", has done all teh work necessary for your salvation, then you have learnt all you need to know, the rest is just head knowledge and as you can see, just causes conflict between those who are supposed to believe and love the same God.

In His LOve

 

[Nomad]

If you all left your religious ways, tossed the bible aside, and remebred just one thing, That Jesus Christ is Lord, that He died for all your sins, and that He, " Jesus", has done all teh work necessary for your salvation, then you have learnt all you need to know, the rest is just head knowledge and as you can see, just causes conflict between those who are supposed to believe and love the same God.

In His LOve

So we should just bury Church history like it never happened? It's that history that has shaped what we all are today. There's no escaping it.

As I said to Christina, if you don''t care for the subject matter of any particular thread you can choose to ignore it. I'm finding all of this whining simply juvenile. Someone complained recently that this board is all milk and no meat. Unfortunatately, I'm inclined to agree.

Well... it's apparent that it's time for me to move on. I will keep you all in my prayers. Adios.

One last thing. For those of you who are not afraid of all things academic, I am moderating a formal debate that begins January 1, 2010. It will take place in the forums section of Warranted Faith Reformed Apologetics and Theology website. The topic is "Prevenient Grace," Anyone who cares to observe this debate is cordially invited to do so. Here's our flyer:

http://www.warrantedfaith.org/index...459:prevenient-grace-debate&catid=3:newsflash

 

[Miss Hepburn]

I've been giving some +'s on this thread and others, but at each new
day - I get, "You've reached your quota'!.

So, sorry you anonymous people.

Miss Hepburn

 

[mjrhealth]

Well this post has gone waaaayyyyy off track. But you all have it wrong. The rock that Jesus spoke of in this verse,

Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Is revelation, and if you put the previous verse in context,

Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

This is how His church is suposed to be built. Jesus being the

Mar 12:10 And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner:

The Corner stone, See Jesus is building His Church on revelation, man is buiding his churches, on his own understaning, and it will fail.

in His Love

 

[Miss Hepburn]

Well this post has gone waaaayyyyy off track. But you all have it wrong. The rock that Jesus spoke of in this verse,
Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Is revelation, and if you put the previous verse in context,
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
This is how His church is suposed to be built. Jesus being the
Mar 12:10 And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner:
The Corner stone, See Jesus is building His Church on revelation, man is buiding his churches, on his own understaning, and it will fail.
in His Love

Now, that was a simple, clear post. It would seem that over all these years the Catholic Church
had it wrong-which would be understandable - that sentence is a tough one to understand.
I tend to go along with what you just said above. You made it easy to see.
Thank you.
Miss Hepburn