How To Read and Understand The Bible

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by NotWorthy
Ed, be careful with what you say, here, for it is VERY misleading. The Church teaches that homosexuality is a sin. If a priest is an active homosexual, then he is doing it against the teaching of the Church. There are priests who have turned out to be gay, but their actions are not condoned by the Church at all

.Yes, I see now what you are saying. But aren’t homosexuals to be converted (saved) so that they no longer consider themselves to be gay. per 1 Cor 6:11.

Some churches have ordained priests and ministers who are active homosexuals and profess their sexual persuasion openly. By moving these people to a position of bishop (like the Episcopal church has), the church is condoning it.

Yes! And God doesn’t like it otherwise the Scriptures would be in error.---- These churches will be among the ecumenical churches that God plans to destroy per Rev,.

Other churches have chosen to look the other way in matters such as these

I have no idea what other churches that you speak about here? -----There are either Bible believing churches who consider homosexuality a sin, and there are what I consider social clubs. The Episcopal church is the latter.

The Catholic Church continues to call homosexuality a sin. As proof of this, you need to simply look at the numerous Episcopal priests who have left their church and joined the Catholic Church simply because the Episcopal Church condones homosexuality

This is true! But as I said they’ll be among the churches that will be destroyed. ED O. Jesus loves you -------------------P.S. I hope that you’ve enjoyed the game last evening.

 

[kepha1]

Absolutely Not!---- For the reason I stated above and because nowhere in Scripture does it even give a slightest hint of any successors. ---- Disciples like you and me. Yes!. ---- By direct command of Jesus Mat 28:19. ----- If Jesus wanted successors He would have said so and Peter wouldn’t be equating himself to the other Elders 1 Pet 5:1---- He would have been setting up the chain of command. ---- In the O.T. God had appointed priests and High priests. Why would you think that Jesus would be so inept now? ED O.

After the original 12 Apostles, how is this Gospel and apostolic authority passed on? Is it passed on at all? After the death of the last Apostle, can any individual who feels “called” by God simply take up the mission and message and carry on where the Apostles left off?

The answer to this question is plainly “no,” as we have already begun to see from Scripture. The mission and the message can only be passed on by someone who first possessed it. That is, the mission does not merely entail preaching the message, but with it comes the authority to spiritually “reproduce” and pass on the necessary authority to the next generation. Let us recap and see how this is so:

God is the source of this mission and authority
He passes it to Jesus (“the Father has sent me… all authority has been given to me”) Jesus passes it on - along with “all authority” to act “in my name” - to the Apostles (“as the Father has sent me, * so I send you,” “go and make disciples”) *
The Apostles pass the mission and authority on to men like St. Timothy and St. Titus (“with all authority” Tit 2:15)
The second apostolic generation is expected to entrust the mission to the next generation, ad infinitum
It is this last point that we must now unpack and develop a bit further. The first generation of Apostles takes care to not only pass along the message, but also creates new pastors with apostolic authority to continue transmitting the message:

“And when they [Ss. Paul and Barnabus] had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they believed.” (Acts 14:23)

“This is why I left you in Crete, that you might amend what was defective, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you.” (Tit. 1:5)

“…and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” (2 Tim. 2:2)

Note once again the appearance of the word “entrust” in this last passage. St. Paul expects that St. Timothy will “guard what has been entrusted” to him, and then later “entrust” that same mission and authority “to faithful men.”

There can be no other reason why St. Paul would leave his two spiritual “sons” (Ss. Titus and Timothy) explicit instructions about the qualifications for overseers, elders, bishops, etc. (c.f. 1 Tim 3:1-7, Tit. 1:5-9), than that he expects them to confer apostolic authority on new men who meet those requirements.

I mentioned earlier that the Apostles were given the responsibility of spiritually “reproducing” new pastors and bishops. It would be profitable for us to look at this in more detail.

In the beginning, God created Adam and Eve. This much we all know (again, I am assuming that I am addressing Protestant pastors who are at least mildly literate in Scripture). What may be new to you, however, is the implicit Father/Son imagery that is used in the creation narrative:
“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him… then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.” (Gen. 1:27, 2:7)
“When Adam had lived a hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth.” (Gen. 5:3)

What these two passages tell us is that, when God created Adam, He was fathering a son in His own image and likeness. Note that God, in the act of fathering his first human son, breathes on the Man, at which point the Man receives his living spirit. Compare this to Jesus and the Apostles:
“Jesus said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit.’” (John 20:21-22)
In the context of conferring His authority on the Apostles, commissioning them to go in His name to build and govern His Church, Jesus does the very same thing His Father did to the First Adam: He breathes upon them, gives them the Spirit, and “fathers” them, spiritually speaking.

This is why the Apostles then turn around and “father” new sons (that is, pastors, bishops, etc., with apostolic authority) - because this is what Jesus did to them. Thus we see St. Paul referring to Ss. Titus and Timothy (both second-generation apostles, according to Scripture) as his “sons,” and calling himself their “father”:

“But Timothy’s worth you know, how as a son with a father he has served with me in the gospel.” (Phil 2:22)

“To Timothy, my true child in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.” (1 Tim. 1:2)

“To Timothy, my beloved child: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.” (2 Tim. 1:2)

“To Titus, my true child in a common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.” (Tit. 1:4)

Father/Son imagery: Gen. 1:27, 2:7
Father/Son imagery John 20:21-22
Father/Son imagery Phil 2:22, 1 Tim. 1:2, 2 Tim. 1:2, Tit. 1:4

God is the source of this mission and authority as I have demonstrated from scripture. Apostolic Succession comes from God, not men. You said, “in Scripture does it even give a slightest hint of any successors.” You may think that because no one has ever explained it to you before.

catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/authority.html

 

[guanophore]

Can you show me precisely in Scripture where I can find the words “Sactred Traditions”

ARe there any other traditions delivered by Apostles that we would be commanded to keep? Surely you don’t think he meant HUMAN traditions?!

 I'm sorry my friend you have it a little mixed up. The Word of God are the letters written by Paul and others. Paul was very concerned that all of his letters were  to be circulated among all the churches.

Yes, the letters were also considered the Word of God. But they do not subtract in any way from the Word of God that was delivered through the preaching. The two go together, they always have.

So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.2 Thess 2:13

What human traditions would be so important that they would be held firmly?

“For this cause also we thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard of us, you received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually works also in you that believe.” 1 Thess. 2:13

What you are saying is that what Paul delivered to them in person was not really the Word of God?

Do you not think Paul is reminding the Thessalonians about the Word He preached to them?

By the way the “Church” are the born again believers who recopied those letters and passed them on and on and on for 300 plus years…

Indeed. All of them Catholics.

He was already concerned about the corruption entering the church. Read Col 4:16, & 2 Pet 3:15. This ought to tell you that Paul would never rely on ORAL traditions which can not be substantiated.

Yes, a legitimate concern even today. But no, I believe that God spent 5000 preparing a people for Himself, training them in the maintenance of the Sacred Oral Tradition. I also believe He is capable of preserving His word in the hearts of believers. What you are suggesting is that God was too weak or disinterested to keep His promises with regard to His Word.

“But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.” Jn 14:26

You seem to believe that the Counselor really did not come, or that He lost the ability to Teach, or that His memory was so bad He could not remember what Jesus said, or His communication skills were so bad He was not able to actually get thru to the Apostles?

. I’ll give you credit for trying!

Well, looky there! I get more credit than the Holy Spirit! That is a first.

 "Traditions" ---- "Teachings of the Apostles" ----- That sounds very authoritative! ----   But can you give me at least one or two and show me where I may be able to read more of them? -----   Have you read any of them? -----

One of them is that when Jesus renamed Simon son of Jonah, He told him He would build His church upon Peter. Peter was considered to be the chief of the Apostles, or as they say in the Eastern Church, “first among equals”.

Again, I really want to know, what traditions do you think are important enough to warrant an Apostolic command to hold fast, yet are not Apostolic Teaching?

Since “Traditions” which has been contested for hundreds of years, one would think that the Catholic church would compile and publish them for all to be able to read them.

That is pretty much what the Catechism is.

WRONG ! ----What you should have said was that the “born again” believers were “Christians” Read Acts 11:26.

All Catholic Christians.

Yes!  -----  And a group of these same "Christian" believers who knew true doctrine opposed to false and who attended the Third Council of Carthage in 397 decided the canon.

All Catholics.

They knew the true from the false because they followed the Apostolic command to hold fast the the traditions whether by word of mouth, or by letter.

How can you follow this command, since you don’t beleive they exist?

 

[Ignatius]

Here’s a good start: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=433198
Here’s another: shop.catholic.com/product.php?productid=240
Here is a superb one: greatadventureonline.com/
Here’re a few more: google.com/search?q=catholic+bible+study+guide&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GGLG_en

 

[guanophore]

. Can you show me Scripture proof that the Jews believed in "be fruitful and multiply"-----

What evidence do you have that they ignored this commandment of God?

The reason that Elizabeth was healed of her shame when she became pregnant is because the Jews considered children a gift from God, and if a couple did not have them, it was a judgement upon them. They anticipated children, and looked forward to them, and that is why it was so hard on them if “the Lord closed her womb”.

Children’s children are a crown to the aged, and parents are the pride of their children. Proverbs 17:6

Psalm 17:14
14from men by your hand, O LORD,
from(A) men of the world whose portion is in this life.
You fill their womb with treasure;**
they are satisfied with children,
and they leave their abundance to their infants.

Psalm 78:6
that the next generation might know them,the children yet unborn,and arise and tell them to their children,

Psalm 128:3
3Your wife will be like a fruitful vine
within your house;
your children will be like olive shoots
around your table.

Psalm 127:4
4Like arrows in the hand of a warrior
are the children of one’s youth.

Psalm 127:3 Behold, children are a heritage from the LORD,
the fruit of the womb a reward.

Psalm 113:9
He gives the barren woman a home,
making her the joyous mother of children.
Praise the LORD!

Children were considered assets, unlike today, when they are considered “punishments”.

 Denying history ? ----- Yes! -----  By common sense! ----- "to be fruitful and multiply" was given to Adam to start a civilization.----- By  "be fruitful and multiply" does that mean to have so many children beyond what you can afford to support?

The Israelites were a nomadic people, and children added to the workforce, and enabled them to maintain more flocks. There was no such thing as “too many”.

----- God’s Word also says that a man is worst than a heathen if he doesn’t provide for his children. ---- So which verse are Catholics to believe?

The point we were trying to make, Ed, is that Sacred Tradition is not to be separated from the Scriptures that it produced. The example was given that when the Sacred Tradition was separated from Scripture on the issue of birth control, the denominations reversed the Apostolic Teaching. The Apostles taught that children are a gift from God and should be received as a blessing.

. Apostolic Teaching where?

Preserved in the Sacred Tradition of the Church.

Then why cause the Catholics to be guilty of sin (disobedience to the church) when God commanded Adam to multiply.----- It's obvious what God's intention was? ----- That is to have more than two people on earth.

Modern man has taken it upon himself to thwart God’s design for human fertility. Many Catholics are guilty of refusing to allow God to be Lord of their reproductive life. They do not receive children as from the Lord.**

 

[guanophore]

You are saying that not me! ------ I said God appoints apostles 1 Cor 12:28, God called the first twelve. Then He called Paul Acts 9:11 Was Matthias appointed by God ? — NO! — That’s what I’m saying

Let’s look at this passage.

12Then they returned to Jerusalem from the hill called the Mount of Olives, a Sabbath day’s walk** from the city. 13When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. 14They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.
15In those days Peter stood up among the believers[c] (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) 16and said, “Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through the mouth of David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus— 17he was one of our number and shared in this ministry.”

18(With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. 19Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)

20"For," said Peter, “it is written in the book of Psalms,
" ‘May his place be deserted;
let there be no one to dwell in it,’[d] and,
" ‘May another take his place of leadership.’[e] 21Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”

23So they proposed two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. 24Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen 25to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” 26Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.

Prior to Pentecost, the casting of lots was the most common way to discern the will of God. So what you are saying is that all the praying the Apostles did was of no avail. God was too weak to get through to them, to make them understand that they were not to choose a successor for Judas.

You are saying that the Scripture that came to Peter’s mind that he thought related to replacing Judas was just his imagination, and not the inspiration of the HS. What is it in the text that tells you his use of Scripture on this occasion is false, unlike all the others?

You are saying that the Apostles’ understanding that there should be 12 of them, and that each had a “share in the ministry” was just a misundertanding on his part?

What you are saying is that God ignored Peter’s prayer, and instead of telling him they were making a mistake, allowed them to choose lots.

After one was chosen, God allowed Matthias to be enrolled with the Apostles, even though that was not His will,a nd He was unable to communicate this to them?

 Yes!  The Apostles that God called. This is elementary do you think that I didn't know that?  This is not news to me either!--- I know that!

You seem to believe that the method used to choose Matthias was not of God. There were specific requirements that an Apostle had to meet.

He was not called by God.---- Why would I admit that he was God's chosen successor to replace Judas?

Just wondering.

I guess you have to deny that, because it is evidence of the Apostolic Succession, and if you were to accept it, it would then become more difficult to deny the facts.

  Absolutely Not!---- For the reason I stated above and because nowhere in Scripture does it even give a slightest  hint of any successors.  ----

Well, we read it differently, don’t we?

 If Jesus wanted successors He would have said so

With all due respect, Ed, you were not present for the Teachings the 40 days after the Resurrection, any more than you were before that. The best evidence we have of what He taught are the doctrines and practices that were committed to the Church. What you are saying is that your perception of what He wanted 2000 years after the fact is more accurate than the people who were present!

The ones who were there believed they needed to choose a successor for Judas. They believed that the HS was leading them, and Peter was given a scripture passage that was prophetic.

If this event was not meant as a pattern, then why does the text not specify that they made a mistake?

 and Peter wouldn't be equating himself  to the other Elders 1 Pet 5:1---- He would have been setting up the chain of command. ---- In the O.T.  God had appointed priests and High priests.

You are thinking in human terms Ed. Jesus was clear to the Apostles when He washed their feet that they were to wield their authority with humility and the heart of a servant.

Yes, in the OT there was a pattern that has been fulfilled in the NT with the priesthood.

  Why would you think that Jesus would be so inept now?    ED O.

I believe that Jesus was ready, willing, and able to lead His Church. I don’t think that God was too weak to get the Apostles attention. Matthias was chosen because that was what Jesus wanted.**

 

[guanophore]

You seem to indicate that it was the Catholic church who decided the canon. And a group of these same “Christian” believers who knew true doctrine opposed to false and who attended the Third Council of Carthage in 397 decided the canon.

They were all Catholics who knew correct doctrine because it was authoritatively preserved and promulgated through the Apostolic Succession. This is the way that Jesus chose to set up His Church.

The born again believers weren’t not concerned about interpretation, the concern was about false letters surfaced. — Therefore the canon had to be established.---- They ( born again believers) knew which letters were true and which were false.

Yes! They knew because this information was preserved and protected by the bishops, the successors of the Apostles.

  I have no idea as to what you are talking about here??????

I can see this. You do not seem to realize that Jesus established an authorative structure.
You have your mind so made up that it can’t be that way that you are unable to process the evidence.

You are directly contradicting Holy Scripture. Peter preached a sermon and 3000 people got saved.---- Nothing else to work out! ----- Nothing else to be completed in a future life.

That is beyond the scope of this thread. Your views are a departure from the Apostolic Teaching about salvation.

Jesus says in Mark 16:15 that is, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned/" ---- Do you believe this?

Yes.

 Where does it say that Peter had to do it?---- Doesn't Jesus have that right to replace Judas?

Jesus worked through Peter to replace Judas. Jesus worked through Peter to do a lot of things. This is how He set things up.

 Jesus said to make Disciples. ---- That means when a disciple is made, he in turn makes a disciple, he then  makes another disciple, that being done eventually fills the nation with disciples up to the present day

There is nothing in that contrary to the Apostolic Succession. Jesus created an authority to shepherd and feed His flock. It resides in the bishops in union with the successor of Peter.

Can you show me  where in Scripture does it say that?

1 Peter 5:2 To Elders and Young Men
1To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: 2Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; 3not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. 4And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away.

An overseer is a bishop, a successor of the Apsotle. The Apostles appointed bishops, and they were instructed to teach faithful men who were able to teach others also. The bishops acted with the authority of the Apostles.

I have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about?????   Zilch Nothing?????    No Idea??????

I am asking you, Ed, how it is that all the Aposltles adn disciples appeared to misunderstand God? Why did they all think He wanted a hierarchical and authoritative structure? 'How is it that God was unable to convince the Church they got it wrong? Do you think the HS got the flu, and was unable to communicate?

Then what is your answer?

I accept what the text says. The Church gathered in prayer, they recieved the scriptural prophesy, they entrusted their actions to the Lord, drew lots, and Matthias was chosen by God. He was then enrolled with the 11, according to the design of God.

What would you expect God to do kick Matthias out? ----- He wasn't causing any problems. -----  Was it in God's plan?

No, actually, I think that God would intervene a lot sooner, while they were all gathered in prayer. “They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.” Acts 1:14

For some reason you think that this is not an appropriate state to hear the direction of God, or that what they received during prayer was of their own invention,which means that God was to weak or disinterested to help them. He did not keep His promise, he left them orphaned.

----- Not according to 1Cor.12:27.

People dont’ stop being members of the Body just because they are not selected for the priesthood or as a bishop.

It could be!  ---- It says they prayed and the lots fell to Matthias.---- Why both? ---- Isn't praying enough?

That is how decisions were made prior to Pentecost.

Let’s stop going in circles.

When you get to heaven you’ll have to ask Him yourself, because I have no idea why?

Well, Ed, I wont’ need to ask, and it is not a circle for me. I trust Jesus did exactly what He said He woudl do, which is lead them into all truth. The Apostolic 'succession exists because that is how He set it up.

How does it ??? ED O.

If they made a mistake selecting Matthias, that would have been the time to correct the Church, because this is the model that has been followed for the 2000 years since. That is why we still have the Apostolic Succession. Men are prepared, the leadership prays, some are selected and installed. That is how it has been done since that day.

 

[guanophore]

the ecumenical churches that God plans to destroy per Rev,.

I have no idea what other churches that you speak about here? -----There are either Bible believing churches who consider homosexuality a sin, and there are what I consider social clubs. The Episcopal church is the latter.

Wow. I guess your bigotry is not confined to Catholicism!

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by guanophore
Do you think the HS got the flu, and was unable to communicate?

Goodbye Guanophore! ---- Something is telling me it’s time to stop !!! ED O.

 

[NotWorthy]

Hi NotWorthy
I hope that you had enjoyed the game.

Onan issue? Explain.

The Church uses the case of Onan in Genesis as one of its proofs against contraception. You see, the good Onan decided to risk an early withdrawal without realizing there was a penalty for it.

As I said before, it’s to the Catholic church’s advantage to have more Catholics to be born. ED O. Jesus Loves You

That’s a nice dodge to the question. If you’d look it up, you’ll find that, according to nearly all the Non-Catholic faiths, what was once sinful, is now allowed. What changed?

BTW, yes they were great games. We won last night, but then we lost tonight by 3. I’m a little worn out, because the games were 2 hours away and very exciting. I’m going to post my thoughts on those Greek words in the Last Supper tomorrow if you’ll bear with me.

 

[NotWorthy]

.Yes, I see now what you are saying. But aren’t homosexuals to be converted (saved) so that they no longer consider themselves to be gay. per 1 Cor 6:11.

Well of course. But that’s not the issue. Someone who sins, no matter the sin, should be corrected.

 

[NotWorthy]

To Ed:

Does Jesus ordain the Apostles (and Disciples) as priests during the Last Supper:

In John 13, we have an interesting verse during the washing of the Feet. Jesus goes to Peter to wash his feet.
*8 ****** Peter said to him, “You will never wash my feet.” Jesus answered him, "Unless I wash you, you will have no inheritance *with me."

In the original Greek that the Apostle John used, the word inheritance was “Meros” (note: I’m spelling the word “meros” phonetically. I’m not entirely sure of the spelling). “Meros” has an interesting usage in the Old Testament. It was used numerous times in Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Numbers to describe the “share” or “inheritance” of the Levites, who were the Old Testament priests. For example in Numbers 18, 8 The LORD said to Aaron, "I myself have given you charge of the contributions made to me in the various sacred offerings of the Israelites; by perpetual ordinance I have assigned them to you and to your sons as your priestly share. There are dozens of times that the divine author uses the word “meros” to describe this “sharing” of the priestly Levites.

And what about the washing of the feet? Exodus 30 tells us - 18*** “For ablutions you shall make a bronze laver with a bronze base. Place it between the meeting tent and the altar, and put water in it.****** 19***Aaron and his sons shall use it in washing their hands and feet.” We find Aaron and Moses washing their feet and hands in Exodus 40 when they enter the Holy of Holies.

Third, we have the words Jesus uses to consecrate the Apostles (and Disciples). In John 17,*** 17****** Consecrate them in the truth*. Your word is truth. 18***** As you sent me into the world, so I sent them into the world. 19****** And I consecrate myself for them, so that they also may be consecrated in truth***.

Hmmm, the word for consecrate is the exact same word that Moses used to consecrate the Levites during the “Golden Calf Incident” in Exodus 32. *29 Then Moses said, "Today you have been dedicated *to the LORD, for you were against your own sons and kinsmen, to bring a blessing upon yourselves this day." more to come:

 

[NotWorthy]

2nd part - Anamnesis and Poiein.

OK, let’s switch over to the words used by Jesus in the Last Supper - “Do this in memory of me”. This, in my opinion, is one of the words translations of the Bible, for it overlooks the sacrificial overtones of Jesus’ words. The words for “Do this” is “Poiein” in Greek. “Anamnesis” is the word Jesus used that translates poorly to “in memory of”.

The following text is, admittedly, cut and pasted from a file I have on my computer. Sadly, I’ve had the file so long, I don’t remember where I got it from, for I would love to give the original author credit.

Poiein(“DO”) has sacrificial overtones. In the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek version of the OT, there are about seventy sacrificial uses of poiein. One example: “*Now this is what you shall OFFER *[Gr poieseis] upon the ALTAR: two lambs a year old, day by day, continually” (see Exodus 29:38).

ANAMNESIS(“REMEMBRANCE”) also has sacrificial overtones. It occurs only eight times in the NT and the Greek OT. All but once (Wisdom 16:6) it is in a sacrificial context: “There is in these SACRIFICES a REMINDER [Gr anamnesis] of sin year after year” (Heb 10:3).
“And you shall put pure frankincense with each row, that it may go with the bread as a MEMORIAL portion [Gr anamnesis] to be OFFERED by fire to the Lord” (Lev 24:7).
“On the day of your gladness…you shall blow over your burnt OFFERINGS and over the SACRIFICES of your peace OFFERINGS; they shall serve you for REMEMBRANCE (Gr anamnesis) before your God” (Num 10:10).
Psalm 38 (39) is titled “A Psalm of David, for the MEMORIAL OFFERING” [Gr anamnesin]. Psalm 70 (71) is titled, “To the choir-master. A Psalm of David, for the MEMORIAL OFFERING” [Gr anamnesin].

In these cases the term ANAMNESIS can be translated as “memorial portion,” “memorial offering,” or “memorial sacrifice.”

Thus in the remaining two occurances of ANAMNESIS (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24), Christ’s words “DO THIS*** in REMEMBRANCE* of Me**,” can be translated as “OFFER THIS for my memorial SACRIFICE.” Given the sacrificial character of the Eucharist, there is little doubt this translation is appropriate. To tell someone, “offer this for my memorial sacrifice” is to direct him to fulfill a priestly function (see Heb 5:1; 8:3).

So the Catholic Church has correctly regarded Christ’s words as the institution of the apostles’ priesthood and as the basis for all future priests who offer the Eucharistic sacrifice.

 

[NotWorthy]

A couple of extra-biblical writings may also surprise you.

In John 15, 2 ** In my Father’s house there are many dwelling places. If there were not, would I have told you that I am going to prepare a place for you? The word that John uses is “Topos” (phonetic spelling) is the word that the first century Jewish Historian Josephus uses to describes the apartments that the Levite Priests would stay in while offering up sacrifices in the Temple at Jerusalem.

A second writing comes from the Jewish Talmud, which represented Jewish traditions. The Talmud tells us that after the Messiah comes, all sacrifices will cease except for one - the Todah Sacrifice. What is the Todah Sacrifice? Why, its the offering up of bread and wine. Sound familiar?

 

[guanophore]

Goodbye Guanophore! ---- Something is telling me it’s time to stop !!! ED O.

Indeed, you have reached a point where you are unable to further your arguement, and you acknowledge the absurdity of your position. You claim that Peter made a mistake when he decided to replace Judas, and that he was not acting according to God’s will.

In order for such a position to be valid, God had to be either unable, or unwilling to guide the Apostles into all Truth, as he promised.

It is not the place of man to figure out the will of God. It is for us to properly dispose ourselves to receive His revelation. And in fact, this is what the Apostles did. They were in prayer, and meditating on the Scriptures, and they engaged in a choosing procedure that God had ordained. So they were all properly disposed to be redirected by God were it necessary. It was not necessary, because God has ordained Apostolic Succession, and this was his will for the replacement of Judas.

Compare this event with the baptism of Gentiles. Again, Peter is well disposed to receive the revelation of God. He is praying and meditating on the roof, seeking the will of God. He had been making a mistake for some time, not understanding that the Kingdom of God and the gospel of grace was as much for the Gentiles as it was for the Jews. God, being perfectly able and willing to lead Peter into all Truth, gives him a vision, then sends some people, then does a miracle, all to get Peter back on the right track. Peter receives the redirection, baptizes the house of Cornelius, then informs the Church that this was God’s will.

 

[mary1173]

Dear Aliciar:

Great question. Two suggestions. #1 prayerfully read DEI VERBUM - you should be able to download it from ewtn.com library. It gives Catholic principles for biblical study.

In a nutshell they are: #1. Look at the bible as a whole, not just a collection of verses. Many people find, at first glance, the bible to be very contradictory. We need to remember that God reveals Himself in stages - just as we teach our children to read or math or anything.

As an example, you will find early (in terms of when the passage was originally written) passages in the Old Testament that say there is no afterlife. Later passages in the Old Testament says there is. Finally, Jesus, definitely says there is both a heaven and a hell and that they both are eternal.

2. Always pray before reading. As the Holy Spirit to show you the truths He is communicating from the passage.​

#3. All scripture, as St. Paul assures us, contains truth. This truth about God is contained in the literal meaning of the passage. Look for the type of literature (narrative, prophecy, moral fable, etc.). These are important clues about the truth the Holy Spirit is trying to teach. For example, take the story of Jonah and the whale. As yourself what kind of literature is this? Is this a narrative relating events as they actually happened or is this a moral fable set in ancient times to teach the universal mercy of God - i.e. that He is the one true God of all nations and He wants all men to know, love and serve Him and that as we respond to His call, He will grant the grace necessary for salvation. I.E. Salvation is for all men, not just Jews, not just Christians (Christ died that all men might be saved, not that all will be, because we need to accept God’s offer of salvation, we have a role to play as well).

#4. The Gospels present an accurate portrayal of Jesus’ life, death and teaching. Not that everything happened EXACTLY as told in the Gospels. Jesus did actually live, teach and die. There are historical records that show this, independent of Scripture. The actual historical details may be recorded differently in the Bible than how it happened. The Gospels were not written as we understand history. They were written to proclaim the truth about God, His Love for us, That Jesus is His fully Divine and fully human Son, who was born, lived and worked for a time and died for the sins of all mankind - everyone that has ever lived, lives now, or will live in the future. The important thing is Jesus’ teaching: about the Father, Himself, the Holy Spirit, about man, God’s Love for him, that Jesus became a man to show us the way to the Father; about salvation - that Jesus died for our sins and that we can receive the gift of salvation through believing in Him.

These are the truths that the Gospels and all scripture teaches. These are the things that are important. These are the things that one looks for when they read Scripture.

As a final suggestion: I would offer the example of the Church. The Church, through the readings read at daily Mass offer a selection from the Old Testament and the New. On Sundays, there is usually an Old Testament reading and a reading from one of the Gospels. Usually, there is a clear theme that unites the two to highlight how Christ is the fulfillment of the Old Testament. On Sunday, there is also usually another reading from one of the letters of Paul, or the other early Church Letters (Peter, James, John, etc.).

There are many magazines (God’s Word Among Us is just one) that offer the daily Mass readings and a brief commentary. Although the commentary is just a guide, it does give an explanation of the day’s theme and some detail on what’s going on in the individual book the reading is taken from. By following this example, you will read the entire bible in three years and will have some valuable guidance and insights into God’s Word. Good Luck.

Corry

This is how I was taught by my mother to go about understanding the readings of the Bible. I couldn’t have said it better myself… You read in small steps throughout the year so as not to confuse yourself. So that you get the fullest meaning you can from the words printed therein. Only then can you understand the meaning of God’s Word, and be inspired to live the life God meant for you to live.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by Guanophore
Indeed, you have reached a point where you are unable to further your arguement,

You got that right! — You are correct! ----- When you posted such an asinine statement as —, “Do you think the Holy Spirit got the flu” ---- I finally realized what I was up against and decided to call it quits. — I wish you well! — Good-bye — Guanophore — God Bless ED O.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Thank you NotWorhty for your time and efforts for posting all of this. Now allow me some time to review and digest it all. ED O. God Bless!

Posted by NotWorthy
2nd part - Anamnesis and Poiein.

OK, let’s switch over to the words used by Jesus in the Last Supper - “Do this in memory of me”. This, in my opinion, is one of the words translations of the Bible, for it overlooks the sacrificial overtones of Jesus’ words. The words for “Do this” is “Poiein” in Greek. “Anamnesis” is the word Jesus used that translates poorly to “in memory of”.

The following text is, admittedly, cut and pasted from a file I have on my computer. Sadly, I’ve had the file so long, I don’t remember where I got it from, for I would love to give the original author credit.

Poiein(“DO”) has sacrificial overtones. In the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek version of the OT, there are about seventy sacrificial uses of poiein. One example: “Now this is what you shall OFFER [Gr poieseis] upon the ALTAR: two lambs a year old, day by day, continually” (see Exodus 29:38).

ANAMNESIS(“REMEMBRANCE”) also has sacrificial overtones. It occurs only eight times in the NT and the Greek OT. All but once (Wisdom 16:6) it is in a sacrificial context: “There is in these SACRIFICES a REMINDER [Gr anamnesis] of sin year after year” (Heb 10:3).
“And you shall put pure frankincense with each row, that it may go with the bread as a MEMORIAL portion [Gr anamnesis] to be OFFERED by fire to the Lord” (Lev 24:7).
“On the day of your gladness…you shall blow over your burnt OFFERINGS and over the SACRIFICES of your peace OFFERINGS; they shall serve you for REMEMBRANCE (Gr anamnesis) before your God” (Num 10:10).
Psalm 38 (39) is titled “A Psalm of David, for the MEMORIAL OFFERING” [Gr anamnesin]. Psalm 70 (71) is titled, “To the choir-master. A Psalm of David, for the MEMORIAL OFFERING” [Gr anamnesin].

In these cases the term ANAMNESIS can be translated as “memorial portion,” “memorial offering,” or “memorial sacrifice.”

Thus in the remaining two occurances of ANAMNESIS (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24), Christ’s words “DO THIS*** in REMEMBRANCE*** of Me,” can be translated as “OFFER THIS for my memorial SACRIFICE.” Given the sacrificial character of the Eucharist, there is little doubt this translation is appropriate. To tell someone, “offer this for my memorial sacrifice” is to direct him to fulfill a priestly function (see Heb 5:1; 8:3).

So the Catholic Church has correctly regarded Christ’s words as the institution of the apostles’ priesthood and as the basis for all future priests who offer the Eucharistic sacrifice

 

[Ignatius]

I am trying to learn how to read and understand it. I used to read it like a normal book and started with Genesis. Now someone told me not to read it like that. Just open it up and read the first passages the page falls on. I would like to learn how to intepret the bible.

Here’s a good start: http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=433198
Here’s another: http://shop.catholic.com/product.php?productid=240
Here is a superb one: http://greatadventureonline.com/
Here’re a few more: http://www.google.com/search?q=catho…rlz=1I7GGLG_en
There are many, many more good Catholic bible studies available.

If you would like to learn more about the teachings of Jesus Christ, please contact the folks at http://www.chnetwork.org/. I promise, if you unite yourself to Jesus Christ through His Church, you will experience the great gift the He has promised to those who follow Him. As Jesus said, “He who eats My body and drinks My blood lives in Me and I in him and I will raise him up on the last day.” And He is faithful and sure to keep His promises. Repent, turn to the Gospel and be saved and you will have everlasting life.

Grace and peace be with you.

Your servant in Christ.