-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
2 Tim 3:
[14] But as for you, continue in what you have learned (TRADITION) and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it (MAGISTERIUM)
[15] and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings (SCRIPTURE) which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
[16] All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in
righteousness,
[17] that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
Sola scripturists avoid verse 14 and 15 because it demolishes their position.
The Bible on St. Paul's list comes in third, not first. He actually gives here the traditional Catholic
teaching on the three sources of sound teaching. In verse 15 he goes into an excursus on the Bible. This brief excursus emphasizes the value of the Bible and recommends a fourfold method of exegesis. This verse was used as a proof text for the Quadriga which was the standard Catholic approach to the Bible. The Quadriga method used the following four categories:
Literal/Literary (teaching) - the text as it is written
Analogical (reproof) - matters of faith
Anagogical (correction) - matters of hope/prophecy
Moral (training in righteousness) - matters of charity
The so called reformers rejected all this and instead adopted a more literal approach to biblical
exegesis, and Martin Luther was rejected by his contemporaries for ignoring 2 Timothy 3:16.
Gary can spout 2 Tim 3:16 all day, but he must avoid the context with verse 14 & 15 because it destroys his man made theory of sola scriptura. But he is partially right on one point: I won't receive 2 Tim 3:16 when it is twisted, abused, and taken out of context.
2 Tim. 3:16 - this verse says that Scripture is "profitable" for every good work, but not exclusive. The word "profitable" is "ophelimos" in Greek. "Ophelimos" only means useful, which underscores that Scripture is not mandatory or exclusive. Protestants unbiblically argue that profitable means exclusive.
2 Tim. 3:16 - further, the verse "all Scripture" uses the words "pasa graphe" which actually means every (not all) Scripture. This means every passage of Scripture is useful. Thus, the erroneous Protestant reading of "pasa graphe" would mean every single passage of Scripture is exclusive. This would mean Christians could not only use "sola Matthew," or "sola Mark," but could rely on one single verse from a Gospel as the exclusive authority of God's word. This, of course, is not true and even Protestants would agree. Also, "pasa graphe" cannot mean "all of Scripture" because there was no New Testament canon to which Paul could have been referring, unless Protestants argue that the New Testament is not being included by Paul.
2 Tim. 3:16 - also, these inspired Old Testament Scriptures Paul is referring to included the deuterocanonical books which the Protestants removed from the Bible 1,500 years later.
2 Tim. 3:17 - Paul's reference to the "man of God" who may be complete refers to a clergyman, not a layman. It is an instruction to a bishop of the Church. So, although Protestants use it to prove their case, the passage is not even relevant to most of the faithful.
2 Tim. 3:17 - further, Paul's use of the word "complete" for every good work is "artios" which simply means the clergy is "suitable" or "fit." Also, artios does not describe the Scriptures, it describes the clergyman. So, Protestants cannot use this verse to argue the Scriptures are complete.
James 1:4 - steadfastness also makes a man "perfect (teleioi) and complete (holoklepoi), lacking nothing." This verse is important because "teleioi"and "holoklepoi" are much stronger words than "artios," but Protestants do not argue that steadfastness is all one needs to be a Christian.
Titus 3:8 - good deeds are also "profitable" to men. For Protestants especially, profitable cannot mean "exclusive" here.
2 Tim 2:21- purity is also profitable for "any good work" ("pan ergon agathon"). This wording is the same as 2 Tim. 3:17, which shows that the Scriptures are not exclusive, and that other things (good deeds and purity) are also profitable to men.
Col. 4:12 - prayer also makes men "fully assured." No where does Scripture say the Christian faith is based solely on a book.
2 Tim. 3:16-17 - Finally, if these verses really mean that Paul was teaching sola Scriptura to the early Church, then why in 1 Thess. 2:13 does Paul teach that he is giving Revelation from God orally? Either Paul is contradicting his own teaching on sola Scriptura, or Paul was not teaching sola Scriptura in 2 Tim. 3:16-17. This is a critical point which Protestants cannot reconcile with their sola Scriptura position.
[14] But as for you, continue in what you have learned (TRADITION) and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it (MAGISTERIUM)
[15] and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings (SCRIPTURE) which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
[16] All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in
righteousness,
[17] that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
Sola scripturists avoid verse 14 and 15 because it demolishes their position.
The Bible on St. Paul's list comes in third, not first. He actually gives here the traditional Catholic
teaching on the three sources of sound teaching. In verse 15 he goes into an excursus on the Bible. This brief excursus emphasizes the value of the Bible and recommends a fourfold method of exegesis. This verse was used as a proof text for the Quadriga which was the standard Catholic approach to the Bible. The Quadriga method used the following four categories:
Literal/Literary (teaching) - the text as it is written
Analogical (reproof) - matters of faith
Anagogical (correction) - matters of hope/prophecy
Moral (training in righteousness) - matters of charity
The so called reformers rejected all this and instead adopted a more literal approach to biblical
exegesis, and Martin Luther was rejected by his contemporaries for ignoring 2 Timothy 3:16.
Gary can spout 2 Tim 3:16 all day, but he must avoid the context with verse 14 & 15 because it destroys his man made theory of sola scriptura. But he is partially right on one point: I won't receive 2 Tim 3:16 when it is twisted, abused, and taken out of context.
2 Tim. 3:16 - this verse says that Scripture is "profitable" for every good work, but not exclusive. The word "profitable" is "ophelimos" in Greek. "Ophelimos" only means useful, which underscores that Scripture is not mandatory or exclusive. Protestants unbiblically argue that profitable means exclusive.
2 Tim. 3:16 - further, the verse "all Scripture" uses the words "pasa graphe" which actually means every (not all) Scripture. This means every passage of Scripture is useful. Thus, the erroneous Protestant reading of "pasa graphe" would mean every single passage of Scripture is exclusive. This would mean Christians could not only use "sola Matthew," or "sola Mark," but could rely on one single verse from a Gospel as the exclusive authority of God's word. This, of course, is not true and even Protestants would agree. Also, "pasa graphe" cannot mean "all of Scripture" because there was no New Testament canon to which Paul could have been referring, unless Protestants argue that the New Testament is not being included by Paul.
2 Tim. 3:16 - also, these inspired Old Testament Scriptures Paul is referring to included the deuterocanonical books which the Protestants removed from the Bible 1,500 years later.
2 Tim. 3:17 - Paul's reference to the "man of God" who may be complete refers to a clergyman, not a layman. It is an instruction to a bishop of the Church. So, although Protestants use it to prove their case, the passage is not even relevant to most of the faithful.
2 Tim. 3:17 - further, Paul's use of the word "complete" for every good work is "artios" which simply means the clergy is "suitable" or "fit." Also, artios does not describe the Scriptures, it describes the clergyman. So, Protestants cannot use this verse to argue the Scriptures are complete.
James 1:4 - steadfastness also makes a man "perfect (teleioi) and complete (holoklepoi), lacking nothing." This verse is important because "teleioi"and "holoklepoi" are much stronger words than "artios," but Protestants do not argue that steadfastness is all one needs to be a Christian.
Titus 3:8 - good deeds are also "profitable" to men. For Protestants especially, profitable cannot mean "exclusive" here.
2 Tim 2:21- purity is also profitable for "any good work" ("pan ergon agathon"). This wording is the same as 2 Tim. 3:17, which shows that the Scriptures are not exclusive, and that other things (good deeds and purity) are also profitable to men.
Col. 4:12 - prayer also makes men "fully assured." No where does Scripture say the Christian faith is based solely on a book.
2 Tim. 3:16-17 - Finally, if these verses really mean that Paul was teaching sola Scriptura to the early Church, then why in 1 Thess. 2:13 does Paul teach that he is giving Revelation from God orally? Either Paul is contradicting his own teaching on sola Scriptura, or Paul was not teaching sola Scriptura in 2 Tim. 3:16-17. This is a critical point which Protestants cannot reconcile with their sola Scriptura position.
Last edited:
It's called looking in the wrong direction. Christ established His church in the upper room when He breathed His Spirit into the disciples and apostles that were present.
Buildings, associations and gatherings aside we as believers are the living stones that comprise the living church that is the bride of Christ. We are the temple of the Holy Spirit.
The only thing that matters is whether you are in Christ not which building you enter and how storied its history may be.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
Buildings, associations and gatherings aside we as believers are the living stones that comprise the living church that is the bride of Christ. We are the temple of the Holy Spirit.
The only thing that matters is whether you are in Christ not which building you enter and how storied its history may be.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
Paul as Saul thought he had the truth too but what he really had was the perverted traditions of men which had been established upon a subtle twisting of the truth. he ended up counting it all as dung and had to begin again with a solid foundation of Jesus Christ. This is the approach that all of us must take in this day and age because all the denominations are wrong today as far as I can tell. Truth can be very elusive which is why we must be honest and diligent in seeking it out.
The Catholic theological system is built upon Original Sin and therefore implicates all of Adam's descendents in the guilt of Adam, which is why they baptise infants to wash this sin away. They also don't teach purity of heart in salvation because the treatment for "Mortal Sin" (presumptuous sin) in their doctrine is the Sacrament of Reconciliation (Confession). Thus under their doctrine the root of iniquity is never purged once and for all like the Bible teaches. The Catholic Church teaches that salvation is through being a member of the Catholic faith and via the system of sacraments they employ.
The theology of the Reformed church is built upon the notion of Total Depravity (a development of Original Sin) and thus they too believe that the guilt of Adam is inherited and that the reason people sin is because they are born defective incapable of virtue. The atonement is viewed as a substitutional penal satisfaction whereby the "sin debt" earned by the sinner is paid in full and thus cannot be made due again. Thus salvation is premised upon thus penal transaction taking place. Thus they are able to reject "works" and are thus separated from Catholic indulgences and sacraments.
Then there are various denominations like the Church of Christ which tend to reject birth depravity but focus on water baptism as the means of regeneration and thus take their focus off of the transformation of heart which is where salvation really takes place irrespective of any external rite, ritual or observance.
There is also the Greek Orthodox church which rejects the Augustinian notion of Original Sin where "guilt" is inherited yet they still hold to the view that Adam's sin caused a defect in human nature which compels people to sin, and thus teach a form of inability because they confuse the natural passions of the flesh as actually being sinful. I believe, like the Catholics, they teach that salvation is premised on being a member of the institionalised church.
The Catholic theological system is built upon Original Sin and therefore implicates all of Adam's descendents in the guilt of Adam, which is why they baptise infants to wash this sin away. They also don't teach purity of heart in salvation because the treatment for "Mortal Sin" (presumptuous sin) in their doctrine is the Sacrament of Reconciliation (Confession). Thus under their doctrine the root of iniquity is never purged once and for all like the Bible teaches. The Catholic Church teaches that salvation is through being a member of the Catholic faith and via the system of sacraments they employ.
The theology of the Reformed church is built upon the notion of Total Depravity (a development of Original Sin) and thus they too believe that the guilt of Adam is inherited and that the reason people sin is because they are born defective incapable of virtue. The atonement is viewed as a substitutional penal satisfaction whereby the "sin debt" earned by the sinner is paid in full and thus cannot be made due again. Thus salvation is premised upon thus penal transaction taking place. Thus they are able to reject "works" and are thus separated from Catholic indulgences and sacraments.
Then there are various denominations like the Church of Christ which tend to reject birth depravity but focus on water baptism as the means of regeneration and thus take their focus off of the transformation of heart which is where salvation really takes place irrespective of any external rite, ritual or observance.
There is also the Greek Orthodox church which rejects the Augustinian notion of Original Sin where "guilt" is inherited yet they still hold to the view that Adam's sin caused a defect in human nature which compels people to sin, and thus teach a form of inability because they confuse the natural passions of the flesh as actually being sinful. I believe, like the Catholics, they teach that salvation is premised on being a member of the institionalised church.
Good teacher questions!
I say scripture interprets scripture very thoroughly. Jesus had to never be found defying the Law of Moses while alive on earth, else disqualified to save us by God's own commandments. His time to become sin for us was not yet. The Law expressly counted drinking blood or eating human flesh as a serious sin resulting in being cut off from the land of Israel.
Leviticus 17:10-14 (KJV)
[SUP]10 [/SUP] And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people.
[SUP]11 [/SUP] For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.
[SUP]12 [/SUP] Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood.
[SUP]13 [/SUP] And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust.
[SUP]14 [/SUP] For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.
That was serious enough that at the first Jerusalem council the apostles reinforced it as forbidden for Christians (Acts 15).
That leaves Jesus' saying completely figurative. It is more understandable to say "You will eat your words, sir." to someone that has spoken dangerous words. Jesus told His disciples they would surely drink of the same cup "of blood" that He would soon drink of.
Matthew 20:22-23 (KJV)
[SUP]22 [/SUP] But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able.
[HR][/HR][SUP]23 [/SUP] And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.
Again, to make symbolic drinking of a cup of blood/wine/wrath/fury check out Jer 25.
Beware of men's traditions that make a piece of bread to be literal flesh of Jesus, or some grape juice that of literally Jesus' blood. Jesus took His own blood to the Father right after rising from the grave, preventing Him from letting Mary touch Him in the garden. The laver of the temple required that blood to remain before God the Father, as shown to Moses in the construction and operation of the Mosaic Tabernacle. Jesus literally fulfilled all the final duties of the earthly High Priest of Israel. No literal blood will be found here. We are accounted as being covered by that blood, like the ancient Jews were sprinkled with literal blood of the sacrifice once a year.
I say scripture interprets scripture very thoroughly. Jesus had to never be found defying the Law of Moses while alive on earth, else disqualified to save us by God's own commandments. His time to become sin for us was not yet. The Law expressly counted drinking blood or eating human flesh as a serious sin resulting in being cut off from the land of Israel.
Leviticus 17:10-14 (KJV)
[SUP]10 [/SUP] And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people.
[SUP]11 [/SUP] For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.
[SUP]12 [/SUP] Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood.
[SUP]13 [/SUP] And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust.
[SUP]14 [/SUP] For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.
That was serious enough that at the first Jerusalem council the apostles reinforced it as forbidden for Christians (Acts 15).
That leaves Jesus' saying completely figurative. It is more understandable to say "You will eat your words, sir." to someone that has spoken dangerous words. Jesus told His disciples they would surely drink of the same cup "of blood" that He would soon drink of.
Matthew 20:22-23 (KJV)
[SUP]22 [/SUP] But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able.
[HR][/HR][SUP]23 [/SUP] And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.
Again, to make symbolic drinking of a cup of blood/wine/wrath/fury check out Jer 25.
Beware of men's traditions that make a piece of bread to be literal flesh of Jesus, or some grape juice that of literally Jesus' blood. Jesus took His own blood to the Father right after rising from the grave, preventing Him from letting Mary touch Him in the garden. The laver of the temple required that blood to remain before God the Father, as shown to Moses in the construction and operation of the Mosaic Tabernacle. Jesus literally fulfilled all the final duties of the earthly High Priest of Israel. No literal blood will be found here. We are accounted as being covered by that blood, like the ancient Jews were sprinkled with literal blood of the sacrifice once a year.
Just to be fair, another 'teaching' question. If the body and blood are only symbolic why is there sickness even death attached to it when partaking of it in an unworthy manner?
1 Corinthians 11:28-30 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
1 Corinthians 11:28-30 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
A fine work of half truths and misrepresentations. A master work truly befitting an accomplished apostate. I am impressed although not in a good way. Please keep any open flames away from this stuff because if these straw men ignite they will burn for days.
2 Timothy 3:17 is for clergy alone is a gross misrepresentation. All believers are priests. 1 Peter 2:9 Oh my its the third bishop of Rome Peter that is speaking Oh my what a coincidence.
They will not enter into eternal life and will not allow others to enter.
Woe unto you scribes and Pharisees.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
2 Timothy 3:17 is for clergy alone is a gross misrepresentation. All believers are priests. 1 Peter 2:9 Oh my its the third bishop of Rome Peter that is speaking Oh my what a coincidence.
They will not enter into eternal life and will not allow others to enter.
Woe unto you scribes and Pharisees.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
Matthew 26:26-28"Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, 'Take, eat; this is my body.' And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, 'Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.'"
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").
Lev. 17:11,14 - in the Old Testament, we see that the life of the flesh is the blood which could never be drunk. In the New Testament, Jesus Christ's blood is the source of new life, and now must be drunk.
Gen. 9:4-5; Deut.12:16,23-24 - in these verses we see other prohibitions on drinking blood, yet Jesus commands us to drink His blood because it is the true source of life. (which may be why they "walked away" John 6:66.
2 Kings 4:43 - this passage foreshadows the multiplication of the loaves and the true bread from heaven which is Jesus Christ.
2 Chron. 30:15-17; 35:1,6,11,13; Ezra 6:20-21; Ezek. 6:20-21- the lamb was killed, roasted and eaten to atone for sin and restore communion with God. This foreshadows the true Lamb of God who was sacrificed for our sin and who must now be consumed for our salvation.
They didn't use a symbolic lamb.
Wrong. James accommodated the Jews complaining about the Gentiles disregarding Mosaic dietary laws, but that was a local temporary ruling, not a universal one. Acts 15 has nothing to do with the institution of the Eucharist.
Rom. 14:14-18; 1 Cor. 8:1-13; 1 Tim. 4:3 – Protestants often argue that drinking blood and eating certain sacrificed meats were prohibited in the New Testament, so Jesus would have never commanded us to consume His body and blood. But these verses prove them wrong, showing that Paul taught all foods, even meat offered to idols, strangled, or with blood, could be consumed by the Christian if it didn’t bother the brother’s conscience and were consumed with thanksgiving to God.
What you are saying is that in order to be a Christian you have to be a martyr. "cup" is used 71 times in the bible, with many different meanings and applications.
It is men's traditions that have reduced Jesus' Body and Blood to grape juice and crackers.
John 6:4 - Jesus is in Capernaum on the eve of Passover, and the lambs are gathered to be slaughtered and eaten. Look what He says.
John 6:35,41,48,51 - Jesus says four times "I AM the bread from heaven." It is He, Himself, the eternal bread from heaven.
John 6:27,31,49 - there is a parallel between the manna in the desert which was physically consumed, and this "new" bread which must be consumed.
John 6:51-52- then Jesus says that the bread He is referring to is His flesh. The Jews take Him literally and immediately question such a teaching. How can this man give us His flesh to eat?
John 6:53 - 58 - Jesus does not correct their literal interpretation. Instead, Jesus eliminates any metaphorical interpretations by swearing an oath and being even more literal about eating His flesh. In fact, Jesus says four times we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Catholics thus believe that Jesus makes present His body and blood in the sacrifice of the Mass. Protestants, if they are not going to become Catholic, can only argue that Jesus was somehow speaking symbolically.
John 6:23-53 - however, a symbolic interpretation is not plausible. Throughout these verses, the Greek text uses the word "phago" nine times. "Phago" literally means "to eat" or "physically consume." Like the Protestants of our day, the disciples take issue with Jesus' literal usage of "eat." So Jesus does what?
John 6:54, 56, 57, 58 - He uses an even more literal verb, translated as "trogo," which means to gnaw or chew or crunch. He increases the literalness and drives his message home. Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat. The word “trogo” is only used two other times in the New Testament (in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18) and it always means to literally gnaw or chew meat. While “phago” might also have a spiritual application, "trogo" is never used metaphorically in Greek. So Protestants cannot find one verse in Scripture where "trogo" is used symbolically, and yet this must be their argument if they are going to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus' words. Moreover, the Jews already knew Jesus was speaking literally even before Jesus used the word “trogo” when they said “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52). John 6:55 - to clarify further, Jesus says "For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed." This phrase can only be understood as being responsive to those who do not believe that Jesus' flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed. Further, Jesus uses the word which is translated as "sarx." "Sarx" means flesh (not "soma" which means body). See, for example, John 1:13,14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Matt. 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; 26:41; Mark 10:8; 13:20; 14:38; and Luke 3:6; 24:39 which provides other examples in Scripture where "sarx" means flesh. It is always literal.
John 6:55 - further, the phrases "real" food and "real" drink use the word "alethes." "Alethes" means "really" or "truly," and would only be used if there were doubts concerning the reality of Jesus' flesh and blood as being food and drink. Thus, Jesus is emphasizing the miracle of His body and blood being actual food and drink.
OK, so you are a Jehovah's Witness.
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.
1 Peter 2:5-6 - Peter says that we as priests offer "sacrifices" to God through Jesus, and he connects these sacrifices to Zion where the Eucharist was established. These sacrifices refer to the one eternal Eucharistic sacrifice of Christ offered in every place around the world.
Rom. 12:1 - some Protestants argue that the Eucharist is not really the sacrifice of Christ, but a symbolic offering, because the Lord's blood is not shed (Heb. 9:22). However, Paul instructs us to present ourselves as a "living sacrifice" to God. This verse demonstrates that not all sacrifices are bloody and result in death (for example, see the wave offerings of Aaron in Num. 8:11,13,15,21 which were unbloody sacrifices). The Eucharistic sacrifice is unbloody and lifegiving, the supreme and sacramental wave offering of Christ, mysteriously presented in a sacramental way, but nevertheless the one actual and eternal sacrifice of Christ. Moreover, our bodies cannot be a holy sacrifice unless they are united with Christ's sacrifice made present on the altar of the Holy Mass.
21. Many Protestants take a dim view towards Christian history in general, esp. the years from 313 (Constantine's conversion) to 1517 (Luther's arrival). This ignorance and hostility to Catholic Tradition leads to theological relativism, anti-Catholicism, and a constant, unnecessary process of "reinventing the wheel."
150 Reasons Why I'm Catholic (You Should Be Too!)
150 Reasons Why I'm Catholic (You Should Be Too!)
True that.....true that.
Wasn't it the Catholics that taught the muslims how?
I say that as a joke but for real, the catholic church was indeed instrumental in starting this muslim empire that's flourishing today, yes?
Wasn't it the Catholics that taught the muslims how?
I say that as a joke but for real, the catholic church was indeed instrumental in starting this muslim empire that's flourishing today, yes?
We could discuss the "church" and its teachings that the world is flat or that the sun circled the earth but they were not scientifically informed and sought to suppress any open scientific thoughts of that sort. They also fought against study of the human anatomy.
Interesting on an intellectual basis but we really must focus on today and teaching the gospel to all who have ears to hear.
For the cause of Christ
Roger