B
BereanRuss
Guest
Of what priesthood? There was no priest because there was no law. The existance of the priest testifies that we are under law and not under grace as our father abe was!
- Status
B
BereanRuss
Guest
God sent His Son that yo may know that you have eternal life. This life is in His Son, not in any one church.
And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.
If you cannot trust God to save you, something is seriously wrong.
S
SHW
Guest
Jesus died for us as a free gift of grace and He reconciled us to God through Baptism. But, that is not the end of the story!
Then we must do the works that our Father has planned for us in order to continue in this grace. If we do not do them, then we will not inherit eternal life.
Ephesians 2:10 “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.”
This is not a suggestion. It is a command. We must obey His commandments also, if we desire to enter eternal life, as others have posted. Salvation is a life-long process.
Romans 13:11 “And do this, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep; for now our salvation is nearer than when we first believed.”
2 Timothy 3:14 “But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them,”
Colossians 1:21-23 “And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled 22 in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight— 23** if** indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister.”
Inheriting eternal life is conditional on whether a person continues in the faith.
Romans 11:22 “Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off.”
We are cut off by disobeying God’s commandments. As James states, we only have to transgress one commandment, instead of having to transgress all of them, in order to lose our salvation. (James 2:9-12) The Law of Liberty is only for those who keep His commandments, it is not for those who do not keep His commandments.
1 Peter 4:17 “For the time has come for judgment to begin at the house of God; and if it begins with us first,** what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God?**”
2 Thessalonians 1:7-9 "when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, 8 in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 These shall be punished with everlasting destruction "
You need to reconcile your OSAS belief with the Truth of the Gospel. We must remain in (abide in) Christ until we die in order to inherit eternal life.
**
John 8:31** “Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed.”
John 15:4-6 “Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me.
5 “I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing. 6 If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned.”
John 15:10 “If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love.”
If we do not keep His commandments, then we do not abide in Him and we will not inherit eternal life.
2 John 1:9 “Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son.”
1 John 3:6 “Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him.”
It is time to change your theology.
Hebrews 5:9-13 "And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him, 10 called by God as High Priest “according to the order of Melchizedek,” 11 of whom we have much to say, and hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. 12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God; and you have come to need milk and not solid food. 13 For everyone who partakes only of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe.
Pax,
SHW
J
jlhargus
Guest
JL: Sounds like you own personal opinion. Where is you evidence for your statement, it makes no sense. There where priest way before the law of Moses. Melchezedec for one.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Well, that puts you about 4 behind me (and I still haven’t got an answer yet from BR.
J
jlhargus
Guest
JL: Sounds like you own personal opinion. Where is you evidence for your statement, it makes no sense. There where priest way before the law of Moses. Melchezedec for one. The law was added by because of the sin of the golden calf. The tabernacle was tended because of the presents of God
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Do you baptize them? Do you teach them all the Christ has commanded you to?
You might evangelize them, as well you shoud, but you do realize that the Apostles were given an authority that you simply do not have, don’t you?
P
PRmerger
Guest
Isn’t that un-biblical, though, Russ? Doesn’t the Bible say it’s the CHURCH that’s the pillar and foundation of Truth?
P
PRmerger
Guest
Sounds like your own personal interpretation, Russ. I don’t read that in His Word.
Now, what do we do when 2 different people disagree about what Scripture says? Are you an infallible interpreter of Scripture?
C
cazayoux
Guest
This is a clear example of a strawman.
You wrongly define what something means, then state that it is a wrong thing to believe.
I think there is a scratch in the record.
Let’s play with your wrong definitions from above.
You DO agree that there is a new testament priesthood that includes everyone. (I’ll repost the scripture below)
So … by your definition above, since there IS actually a new testament priesthood, there is a law by which we must all perform our duties.
What is that law and what duties must we all perform?
You have a shallow knowledge of scripture, a huge dose of prejudice shown so far, and your theology has you going in circles.
Put down the tract, and pick up THE BIBLE. Spend a year in it, then come back. We’ll be here.
michel
Rom 15:15-16
[15] But on some points I have written to you very boldly by way of reminder, because of the grace given me by God
[16] to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.
1 Pet 2:4-5
[4] Come to him, to that living stone, rejected by men but in God’s sight chosen and precious;
[5] and like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
1 Pet 2:9
[9] But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.
Rev 1:5-6
[5] and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the first-born of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood
[6] and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
Rev 5:10
[10] and hast made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on earth."
Rev 20:6
[6] Blessed and holy is he who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and they shall reign with him a thousand years.
C
cazayoux
Guest
wrong again … it is actually in exactly ONE church.
Matt 16:18
[18] And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
Note that church is SINGULAR.
Jesus doesn’t say he will build his ‘churches’.
Did different parts of the church believe different things?
Acts 4:32
[32] Now the company of those who believed were of one heart and soul,
ONE heart and soul.
1 Cor 1:10
[10] I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.
AGREE … UNITED … SAME MIND … SAME JUDGEMENT
Since we’ve learned this scripture, let me fix your statement from above.
God sent His Son that you may know that you have life is in His Son, through His one church, the pillar and bulwark of truth and final arbiter on earth, according to scripture.
michel
J
joe370
Guest
Why is the word presbyter used in the place of hiereus in the N.T when addressing the ministerial priesthood…
The question I had to ask myself was: does the presbyter share in the priesthood of the bishops? Is he to be molded into the likeness of Christ, the supreme and eternal Priest, by ordination to do as Christ commanded when He said: do this do in remembrance of me? Is he made a true ministerial priest of Jesus’ one church, even though the word hiereus is not used to identify them in the New Testament. Is he to preach the Good News, sustain God’s people, and celebrate the liturgy, and above all, the Lord’s sacrifice
, as they did in the first century? Is he to carry out in public the priestly ministry of the one and only High Priest, Jesus Christ on behalf of humankind, serving Christ the Teacher, Priest, and Shepherd in his ministry to make Jesus’ One Body, the Church, grow “unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
” Is he, as a minister of Christ, just as the apostles and their successors were, via the imposition of hands, to strive to perfect the spiritual sacrifice of the faithful royal priesthood, by uniting those sacrifices to Christ’s one sacrifice, which is re-presented at the Mass, via the power of the Holy Spirit, which Jesus offered once and for all, 2000 years ago?
Is he suppose to, as per the words: do this in remembrance of me, take the bread, bless it and give thanks, break it in to pieces, and hand it to each brother and sister in Christ, and say: "This is Christ’s Body, which is given up for you? Yes…
The priest does not offer Christ again in sacrifice, just as the Romans didn’t; Christ offered Himself up…but rather, in the Eucharist, the Church mystically enters into that same sacrifice that was made once for all on Golgotha. In this sense the minister is administering his priestly duty, and participating in Jesus’ priestly work on the cross, when they do as He said! The C.C. as she has for 2000 years, teaches that through the re-presentation of that one sacrifice, in the Eucharist, the priest who administers/commemorates and the congregation which is present, participate in Christ’s redemptive work, for themselves, for the good of the Church, and for the whole world.
The word hiereus is not used in the N.T. to describe the man of God who administers his priestly duties for the same reason it isn’t applied more often to Jesus, the New Testament high priest–because most of these priests, like Jesus, were not from the tribe of Levi. In Jewish circles, the idea of a priest not being from Levi was absurd. Everyone knew God had given the priesthood to Aaron and his descendants. (Ex. 28:1; cf. Num. 16-17)
Most Christian presbyter-priests were not from Levi, much less the Aaronic line, and it would have posed apologetic difficulties for Christians in Jewish communities to refer to their ministers as “priests.” An ordinary, first-century Jew would snort at that idea, saying, “Oh, yeah…Your ministers are priests you say; they aren’t even Levites, as they role their eyes!”
The early Christians faced a similar problem when it came to claiming/supporting Jesus’ New Testament high Hiereushood, that the Christians belonging to the C.C. face today, when it comes to claiming/supporting their ministerial hiereushood! Jesus was from the tribe of Judah, not Levi. A first-century Jew would have scoffed at that idea.
So when the Church was still largely Jewish, which probably started changing after the sack of Jerusalem, the priesthood of Jesus and his ministers was kept in the background, and the Greek word for “priest” was used for them only rarely. In that way non-Christian Jews would not automatically reject Christianity and could become familiar with it before being hit with the idea of non-Levitical priests. The word presbyter, or elder was therefore employed due to its neutral and non-religious context.
Therefore, there is only one book–Hebrews–which directly refers to Jesus as a priest and only one book–Romans–which directly refers to his ministers as priests. Other books of the New Testament absolutely show Jesus and the presbyters doing jobs only priests can do, but the term hiereus is not used for them.
When Jesus’ priesthood is directly stated, the ordained minister/teacher must go to great pains to justify the idea to Jews; this must have been an almost impossible task! Non-Christian Jews were arguing that Christianity could not possibly be true because Jesus could not be the high priest of the New Covenant. He was from the wrong tribe: He was not a Levite, and this was ingrained in them from birth! To reclaim his Hebrew Christian readers, who were in danger of going back to Judaism, the ordained minister/teacher of Hebrews had to show that this fact did not matter.
That is the basic function of chapter 7. It is okay for Jesus to be a high priest because he was not a priest of the order of Aaron but of the order of Melchizedek, (6:20) an order which was older than the Aaronic one, (7:1) which did not require a special genealogy, (7:3) which was superior to the Aaronic order, (7:4-10) which was prophesied to arise again one day, (7:11; cf. Ps. 110:4) and which required “a change in the law as well… For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests.” (7:12-14)
The author of the book of Hebrews wanted to keep his readers from going back to Judaism, and so he had to prove that “it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, blameless, unstained, separated from sinners, exalted above the heavens. Indeed, the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests, but the word of the oath… [Ps. 110:4] …which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect for ever.” (7:26, 28)
Once Jesus’ established Church ceased to be mostly Jewish this was no longer an apologetic problem. Gentiles did not have any pre-conceived notions that priests had to be from the tribe of Levi, so they could convert without this being an issue. Therefore, after Jesus’ one Church became mostly Gentile, the priesthood of Christ and his ministers became more prominent.
At some point in the early second century, Greek-speaking Christians began using hiereus ‘holy person’ to refer first to bishops, and then by extension to the presbyters under them, but still drawing a distinction between the Jewish priesthood, pagan priesthoods, and the one priesthood of Christ. The Didache for example, refers to “prophets” (13:3) as “high priests” and later stating, in 15:2, that “bishops” are functionally equivalent to prophets, thus extending the term “priest” to them as well. The Letter of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, written in the late First Century AD, draws an analogy between the ministry of the Jewish priests and Christian bishops. The usual term for bishop, however, is episcopus, the Latin word from which the English “bishop” is derived, and which is itself derived from the Greek word epískopos, “overseer” or “supervisor.”
To all my non-Catholic friends here at CAF, feel free to do your own research if you don’t believe me; I think…I hope that this settles the matter vis-a-vis the word hiereus…
The question I had to ask myself was: does the presbyter share in the priesthood of the bishops? Is he to be molded into the likeness of Christ, the supreme and eternal Priest, by ordination to do as Christ commanded when He said: do this do in remembrance of me? Is he made a true ministerial priest of Jesus’ one church, even though the word hiereus is not used to identify them in the New Testament. Is he to preach the Good News, sustain God’s people, and celebrate the liturgy, and above all, the Lord’s sacrifice
, as they did in the first century? Is he to carry out in public the priestly ministry of the one and only High Priest, Jesus Christ on behalf of humankind, serving Christ the Teacher, Priest, and Shepherd in his ministry to make Jesus’ One Body, the Church, grow “unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
” Is he, as a minister of Christ, just as the apostles and their successors were, via the imposition of hands, to strive to perfect the spiritual sacrifice of the faithful royal priesthood, by uniting those sacrifices to Christ’s one sacrifice, which is re-presented at the Mass, via the power of the Holy Spirit, which Jesus offered once and for all, 2000 years ago?
Is he suppose to, as per the words: do this in remembrance of me, take the bread, bless it and give thanks, break it in to pieces, and hand it to each brother and sister in Christ, and say: "This is Christ’s Body, which is given up for you? Yes…
The priest does not offer Christ again in sacrifice, just as the Romans didn’t; Christ offered Himself up…but rather, in the Eucharist, the Church mystically enters into that same sacrifice that was made once for all on Golgotha. In this sense the minister is administering his priestly duty, and participating in Jesus’ priestly work on the cross, when they do as He said! The C.C. as she has for 2000 years, teaches that through the re-presentation of that one sacrifice, in the Eucharist, the priest who administers/commemorates and the congregation which is present, participate in Christ’s redemptive work, for themselves, for the good of the Church, and for the whole world.
The word hiereus is not used in the N.T. to describe the man of God who administers his priestly duties for the same reason it isn’t applied more often to Jesus, the New Testament high priest–because most of these priests, like Jesus, were not from the tribe of Levi. In Jewish circles, the idea of a priest not being from Levi was absurd. Everyone knew God had given the priesthood to Aaron and his descendants. (Ex. 28:1; cf. Num. 16-17)
Most Christian presbyter-priests were not from Levi, much less the Aaronic line, and it would have posed apologetic difficulties for Christians in Jewish communities to refer to their ministers as “priests.” An ordinary, first-century Jew would snort at that idea, saying, “Oh, yeah…Your ministers are priests you say; they aren’t even Levites, as they role their eyes!”
The early Christians faced a similar problem when it came to claiming/supporting Jesus’ New Testament high Hiereushood, that the Christians belonging to the C.C. face today, when it comes to claiming/supporting their ministerial hiereushood! Jesus was from the tribe of Judah, not Levi. A first-century Jew would have scoffed at that idea.
So when the Church was still largely Jewish, which probably started changing after the sack of Jerusalem, the priesthood of Jesus and his ministers was kept in the background, and the Greek word for “priest” was used for them only rarely. In that way non-Christian Jews would not automatically reject Christianity and could become familiar with it before being hit with the idea of non-Levitical priests. The word presbyter, or elder was therefore employed due to its neutral and non-religious context.
Therefore, there is only one book–Hebrews–which directly refers to Jesus as a priest and only one book–Romans–which directly refers to his ministers as priests. Other books of the New Testament absolutely show Jesus and the presbyters doing jobs only priests can do, but the term hiereus is not used for them.
When Jesus’ priesthood is directly stated, the ordained minister/teacher must go to great pains to justify the idea to Jews; this must have been an almost impossible task! Non-Christian Jews were arguing that Christianity could not possibly be true because Jesus could not be the high priest of the New Covenant. He was from the wrong tribe: He was not a Levite, and this was ingrained in them from birth! To reclaim his Hebrew Christian readers, who were in danger of going back to Judaism, the ordained minister/teacher of Hebrews had to show that this fact did not matter.
That is the basic function of chapter 7. It is okay for Jesus to be a high priest because he was not a priest of the order of Aaron but of the order of Melchizedek, (6:20) an order which was older than the Aaronic one, (7:1) which did not require a special genealogy, (7:3) which was superior to the Aaronic order, (7:4-10) which was prophesied to arise again one day, (7:11; cf. Ps. 110:4) and which required “a change in the law as well… For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests.” (7:12-14)
The author of the book of Hebrews wanted to keep his readers from going back to Judaism, and so he had to prove that “it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, blameless, unstained, separated from sinners, exalted above the heavens. Indeed, the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests, but the word of the oath… [Ps. 110:4] …which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect for ever.” (7:26, 28)
Once Jesus’ established Church ceased to be mostly Jewish this was no longer an apologetic problem. Gentiles did not have any pre-conceived notions that priests had to be from the tribe of Levi, so they could convert without this being an issue. Therefore, after Jesus’ one Church became mostly Gentile, the priesthood of Christ and his ministers became more prominent.
At some point in the early second century, Greek-speaking Christians began using hiereus ‘holy person’ to refer first to bishops, and then by extension to the presbyters under them, but still drawing a distinction between the Jewish priesthood, pagan priesthoods, and the one priesthood of Christ. The Didache for example, refers to “prophets” (13:3) as “high priests” and later stating, in 15:2, that “bishops” are functionally equivalent to prophets, thus extending the term “priest” to them as well. The Letter of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, written in the late First Century AD, draws an analogy between the ministry of the Jewish priests and Christian bishops. The usual term for bishop, however, is episcopus, the Latin word from which the English “bishop” is derived, and which is itself derived from the Greek word epískopos, “overseer” or “supervisor.”
To all my non-Catholic friends here at CAF, feel free to do your own research if you don’t believe me; I think…I hope that this settles the matter vis-a-vis the word hiereus…
N
NotWorthy
Guest
BereanRuss, (and even Ralphy… for you still haven’t answered the question, yet)
You may have answered this already, but this thread is going so fast…
How do you read John 6:53 in anyway BUT literal?
In ancient Israel, according to the Psalms, to “eat someone’s flesh”, in a figurative way, was to “loathe and revile” someone.
How can you possibly take John 6:53 figuratively, understanding this? Couldn’t this be the very reason the ancient Jews had so much trouble accepting this hard teaching.
You may have answered this already, but this thread is going so fast…
How do you read John 6:53 in anyway BUT literal?
In ancient Israel, according to the Psalms, to “eat someone’s flesh”, in a figurative way, was to “loathe and revile” someone.
How can you possibly take John 6:53 figuratively, understanding this? Couldn’t this be the very reason the ancient Jews had so much trouble accepting this hard teaching.
B
BereanRuss
Guest
Then why do you call Christians, “separated brethren” if there is almost no chance that they are brothers in Christ and almost no chance that they will spend eternity with you?
N
NotWorthy
Guest
You know, I like to keep it simple. Instead of that long and detailed post (all of which I agree with, however), I’m also of the assumption that the New Covenant Church didn’t want to confuse the faithful into thinking the NT priests had the same roles as or were just a continuance of the OT priests - sacrificing bulls and what-not.
Hence, the sacrificial terms were used in describing the priest’s role in the Eucharist (“Do this in memory of me”), but not in the use of the name heireus.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
J
jlhargus
Guest
JL: So if there is no distinction, between works of the ceremonial law and the moral law, (I agree they are both part of the law of Moses). Then are you saying, the Gentiles had the ceremonial law of circumcision and the other six hundred or so laws, written in their heart, following them all by nature. Rm2:14 Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15 since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/WORK-LAW.htm Works of the Law, by Akin
B
BereanRuss
Guest
So basically what you are saying is that the Apostles were not straight forward about the Gospel. That though there was a priesthood in the church, the apostles attempted to keep is a secret so the Jews would not find out and reject Christianity.
Even if they did publically keep this a secret, why keep it secret in letters that only the church will read? The Epistles were written to believers, not non-believers.
And don’t you think that the truth would surface somewhere and the news would get to the Jew anyways that the priests were not of the tribe of Levi?
How is it that Peter had the guts to preach to those that Had just crucified Jesus without fear and in the power of the Spirit but he can’t mention priest for fear of the unbelieving Jews? Listen to him:
Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it.
You have the audacity to proclaim that Peter was a wimp who was not straight forward about the message of the Gospel? You attempt to change the fearless Paul of the New Testament into one who is willing to tell half lies? You accuse God’s word of being unreliable? You are calling God a liar to His face if His word in not true for any reason.
Stop conforming God into your image. God is not a deceiver. God is not a liar.
J
jlhargus
Guest
JL: Christ was not a literal door, Christ was not a literal vine, Christ was not a literal lion, Christ was not a literal lamb and rivers of living water do not literally flow out of our bellies. Ask yourself, did any one misunderstand when Christ said any of the above metaphors, or any of the others he used. How many said, “how can this man be a vine?” How many complained, these are hard sayings who can hear them? How many FOLLOWED HIM NO MORE, when he said these things? NONE, because they understood perfectly, he was speaking symbolically. Christ never held a door in his hands and said, this IS my body, Christ never took a vine in his hands and said, this IS my blood. Christ did take bread in his hands and said, this IS my body, Christ did take a cup of wine in his hands and say, this IS my blood.
When Christ said in Jn6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and THE BREAD that I WILL GIVE IS MY FLESH, which I will give for the life of the world. 52 THE JEWS therefore strove among themselves, SAYING, HOW CAN THIS MAN GIVE US HIS FLESH TO EAT? [They questioned HOW? because they clearly understood his meaning to be literal. Had I been there I would have thought he meant to eat and drink his blood after he died.]
Jn6:53 Then JESUS SAID unto them, VERILY, VERILY, I say unto you, EXCEPT YE EAT THE FLESH OF THE SON man, AND DRINK HIS BLOOD, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For MY FLESH IS MEAT INDEED, and MY BLOOD IS DRINK INDEED. [Jesus states it more strongly, making it even more clear, MY FLESH IS MEAT INDEED, MY BLOOD IS DRINK INDEED. It was a hard saying, because they understood perfectly. His meaning was literal, not symbolic. A symbol would not have been A HARD SAYING, but an easy saying to accept.
Jn6:60 MANY therefore of his DISCIPLES, when they had heard this, SAID, THIS IS AN HARD SAYING, WHO CAN HEAR IT?
Jn6:61 When JESUS knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he SAID unto them, DOTH THIS OFFEND YOU? [It would have offended and disgusted me, not knowing HOW I was to eat his body and drink his blood. That’s why he gives his flesh and blood to eat under the appearance of bread and wine. It does not offend or disgust. We know HOW now. We recognise him in the breaking of bread, as those on the road to Emmaus did, Lk24:30 And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, HE TOOK BREAD, and BLESSED it, AND BRAKE, and GAVE TO THEM. 31 And THEIR EYES WERE OPENED, and THEY KNEW HIM; and he vanished out of their sight. Lk24:35 And THEY TOLD what things were done in the way, and HOW HE WAS KNOWN of them IN BREAKING OF BREAD.]
Jn6:63 IT IS THE SPIRIT THAT QUICKENETH; THE FLESH PROFITETH NOTHING: THE WORDS that I SPEAK unto you, they ARE SPIRIT, AND they are LIFE. 64 But THERE ARE SOME of you THAT BELIEVE NOT. For JESUS KNEW from the beginning WHO they were that BELIEVED NOT, and WHO SHOULD BETRAY HIM. 65 And HE SAID, Therefore said I unto you, that NO MAN CAN COME UNTO ME, EXCEPT it were GIVEN unto HIM OF MY FATHER.
[Many Protestants say this proves, Christ was speaking symbolically. Yet it was after saying this that many of HIS DISCIPLES walked no more with him. Why would they leave if Christ confirmed a symbolic meaning? They didn’t, they left because they knew and took him, at his WORD, literally. Our Lord says, “no man can come unto me, EXCEPT given him OF MY FATHER”. It is the Spirit that quickeneth, not the flesh. Thinking in a fleshy carnal way one cannot see as our Lord says, [Jn6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that EVERY ONE WHICH SEETH THE SON, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.] How do we see our Lord, by faith taking him at his literal WORD. We recognise him in the breaking of bread, as those on the road to Emmaus.
Jn 6:66 FROM THAT TIME MANY OF HIS DISCIPLES WENT BACK, and WALKED NO MORE WITH HIM.
Jn6:67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, WILL YE ALSO GO AWAY? [Our Lord was not willing to water down his literal statement for anyone not even the apostles, not even if he had to ascend back to heaven, [Jn6:61 When JESUS knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he SAID unto them, DOTH THIS OFFEND YOU? 62 WHAT and IF YE shall SEE THE SON of man ASCEND up WHERE HE WAS before?]. Peter seems to have taken it, as a literal hard saying, not knowing HOW Christ’s flesh is food indeed and his blood drink indeed. Yet Peter accepted by faith knowing and trusting who Christ really was.]
Jn6:68 Then Simon Peter answered him, LORD TO WHOM SHALL WE GO? THOU HAST THE WORDS OF ETERNAL LIFE. 69 And WE BELIEVE and are sure that THOU ART that CHRIST, the SON OF THE LIVING GOD.
70 JESUS ANSWERED them, HAVE NOT I CHOSEN YOU TWELVE, and ONE OF YOU IS A DEVIL? 71 HE SPAKE OF JUDAS ISCARIOT the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve. [The early Church Fathers saw this as the time Judas, no longer walked with Christ. Judas turned away from the Lord, not believing in the literal meaning of transubstantiation.]
The people of Christ’s day were also outraged, when Christ claimed to be equal to God. For them believing GOD BECAME FLESH WAS AS IMPOSSIBLE, as some find believing he is present under appearance of bread and wine. In a sense we are both right, Catholics have the real presents as taught and Protestants have a symbol as they teach.
J
jlhargus
Guest
JL: Abraham did sacrifice, that is what a priest does, the first born were priests. When the golden calf was worshiped and Moses asked who will stand with the Lord, it was not the priest or firstborn, but the men of the tribe of Levi who came forward and they replaced the firstborn prieshood. Also Aaron and his sons tended the tabernacle sacrificing animals which represented the old gods of Egypt and the bulls as a constant reminder of the sin, of worshiping the golden calf.
- Status