How To Read and Understand The Bible

[PJM]

=Ginger2;5743534]2 Ti 16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

My but aren’t you clever! I 'll bet your post even made you smile:thumbsup:

Let’s not overlook the fact that then bible was completely written by the end of the First Century. If your satement were true, then the entire bible would have to NOT be true.

Protestants made chages to the Canon that had been set for at leat 1100 years! Aditionally they made many verse changes. So the Fact remains, that except where the KJB matches the words of the Catholic Bible, it is blantly false and untrue.

We both know that these words were addressed to the Catholic Bible.

Love and prayers, and thanks for the smile.

 

[NotWorthy]

I’ve shown this so many times, I’ve lost count.

Will one more make any difference?

Yes, one more will make the difference. I’d love to see the Canon that the Church had that Protestants still use today.

 

[NotWorthy]

Again you are mistaken. All 3 group held to the exact same books of the Torah.

Please tell me you mis-spoke here. The Torah, by all standards are simply the first 5 books of the Bible. The Law. So yes, all 3 groups held the same 5 books of the Torah. But the OT Scriptures are a different story. The Pharisees had quite an expanded list, not closed by any means. They referred to them as the Law and the Prophets. The Sadducees and the Samaritans limited their Scriptures to only the Torah. This is one of the reasons Paul’s admonition of believing in the Resurrection of the Dead caused quite a stir in Acts when he’s brought in front of the Sanhedrin.

And yes, the Ethiopian Jews do have the same OT Canon as the Catholic Church.

 

[NotWorthy]

Ginger, did you miss this post?

OK, so you admit that the Apostles were given the authority to forgive sins in Jesus’ name? That’s what His words were. I’d like your thoughts on this before I continue. But I will address the rest of your post.

 

[EdOsiecki]

NotWorthy
I don’t have to read any into that verse. I can tell you that it was Jewish tradition to confess their sins to the priest when performing the rights necessary in Leviticus 5.

Hi NotWorthy, nowhere in the OT does it state that people confessed their sins to a priest. Here’s what Lev 5 states: " then whoever is guilty in any of these cases he shall confess the sin he has incurred" (TO WHOM TO THE PRIEST OR GOD) You don’t know as well as I don’t know. That’s why it takes other verse or verses to make it clear. This is what PS 32:6 states , “I will confess my transgressions to the Lord.” PS 25:18, David prays to God,“Look upon my afflictions and my distress and take away my sins.”, 1 Chron 21:8, Then David said to God," I have sinned greatly by doing this. Now I beg. take away the guilt of your servant.I have done a foolish thing." Lk 5:20 The teachers of the Law knew that only God forgives sins. As you can see, there was/is no Jewish tradition of confessing sins to a priest.

A) Confession was not an invention of the Church.

Confessing to a priest has to be a NT invention since there’s no record of it in the OT. And there’s no need of it in the NT. 1 John 3:9, states,“No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God.”

b) There is an authority that is given to the Apostles in John 20 to forgive sins Jesus’ Name. Do you acknowledge this authority or do you still not see it

. John 20:22 (1) It does not say in Jesus’ name. (2) Nowhere in the NT did the apostles or anyone else hear any confessions. (3) If that authority was given to the apostles they died years ago. (4) Nowhere in the NT are priests hearing any confessions. They are sinful men like the people that would be confessed. (5) Since there’s no animals to killed and sacrificed on the altar, the Roman Catholic church desperately needs this verse, otherwise there’s no need for any priests at all and their whole system is bankrupt. (6) John 20:22 means the same as Mat18:18 Anyone who confesses their sins will be saved, anyone who does not confess their sins will not be saved. And the confessing is to God otherwise 1 John 3:9 above is useless! ED O.

 

[SteveGC]

Confessing to a priest has to be a NT invention since there’s no record of it in the OT. And there’s no need of it in the NT. 1 John 3:9, states,“No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God.”

Does this mean you believe that you no longer sin, Ed? Or does it mean that you believe that when you do sin, you will inevitably and invariably repent and reconcile because you are born again? If the latter, do you think the Prodigal Son had no choice but to return because he was born again? Or could he have chosen to stay separated?

Thanks for your answers.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hi NotWorthy, nowhere in the OT does it state that people confessed their sins to a priest. Here’s what Lev 5 states: " then whoever is guilty in any of these cases he shall confess the sin he has incurred" (TO WHOM TO THE PRIEST OR GOD) You don’t know as well as I don’t know.

Perhaps the answer is as follows:

Leviticus 5:5-6
5 " 'When anyone is guilty in any of these ways, he must confess in what way he has sinned 6 and, as a penalty for the sin he has committed, he must bring to the LORD a female lamb or goat from the flock as a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin.

Notice that the Word of God says, “the priest shall make atonement.” Clearly in the Old Testament, the priesthood existed to offer sacrifices and make atonement for the sins committed by the people. Does this idea continue in the New Testament?

Hebrews 10:1
1 The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves.

Here the author of Hebrews instructs us that the Old Testament prefigures and foreshadows New Testament truths; the Old is revealed more fully in the New. This seems to suggest that the role of the priest (ie, making atonement) as described in Leviticus should reveal something to us about the New Testament priesthood. So, what does the New Testament teach us about confession of sin?

1 John 1:9
9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.

We should confess our sins, and God will forgive us, but do we confess our sins to God alone? No!

James 5:13-16
13 Is any one of you in trouble? He should pray. Is anyone happy? Let him sing songs of praise. 14 Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven. 16 Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed.

Here the word of God tells us to call the elders (the Greek word is presbuteroi, or “presbyter”, from which the English word “priest” is derived). So, in this context, James is telling us to send for the priests who will pray over someone who is sick, and if he has sinned, he will be forgiven. Recalling the passage from Leviticus above, we see there is a strong parallel between the priests of the Old Testament who made atonement for sin and the presbyters or priests of the New Testament to whom we confess sins for forgiveness. But this sounds like blasphemy! Can men really forgive sins? This same question is asked in the New Testament.

Mark 2:5-7
5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” 6Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, 7"Why does this fellow talk like that? He’s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?"

Who can forgive sins but God alone? This question is often asked by those who seek to deny the sacrament of confession. However, note that this question is asked by the scribes who did not accept Jesus. Those who quote this passage find themselves on the side of those who rejected the Messiah. There’s more to the story, however; let’s consider the same incident from the book of Matthew.

Matthew 9:1-7
1 Jesus stepped into a boat, crossed over and came to his own town. 2Some men brought to him a paralytic, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven.” 3 At this, some of the teachers of the law said to themselves, “This fellow is blaspheming!” 4 Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, “Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts? 5Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? 6But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins…” Then he said to the paralytic, “Get up, take your mat and go home.” 7And the man got up and went home. 8When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to men.

The Bible teaches that God had given the authority to forgive sins “to men”. Note that this is not “to a man” but “to men” – plural. So, it is not only Jesus who has authority to forgive sins – “men” have this authority, also. This sounds like a “hard teaching”…is there confirmation of this in the Bible?

John 20:21-23
21 Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

How did God send Jesus into the world? With the authority to forgive sins as we saw in Matthew 9:6. How does Jesus send the Apostles? In the same way that the Father had sent Him…with the authority to forgive sins as we have just seen in John 20:23. How could the Apostles obey the commandment of Jesus to forgive sins unless they heard these sins confessed?

Finally, we find that the Apostle Paul himself forgave the sins of others acting in persona Christi or “in the person of Christ” – just as the Catholic Church teaches concerning the sacrament of reconciliation.

2 Corinthians 2:10
10To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ; (KJV)

And to whom you have pardoned any thing, I also. For, what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned any thing, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ. (Douay Rheims)

Can we go directly to God for the forgiveness of our sins? Of course, but the scriptures just presented suggest that the normative means of forgiveness is by confession to a priest, and while it is true that only God can forgive sins, the Bible teaches that He has chosen to do so through the ordained priesthood and the Sacrament of Reconciliation that He Himself instituted.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Confessing to a priest has to be a NT invention since there’s no record of it in the OT.

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that this is correct. I have no problem with confession being a NT “invention” since Jesus Christ instituted the sacrament.

And there’s no need of it in the NT. 1 John 3:9, states,“No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God.”

Oh. Well, how silly of Jesus to have given the Apostles the authority to forgive sin when they didn’t really need to do so.

John 20:22 (1) It does not say in Jesus’ name.

How did God send Jesus into the world? With the authority to forgive sins as we saw in Matthew 9:6. How does Jesus send the Apostles? In the same way that the Father had sent Him…with the authority to forgive sins as we have just seen in John 20:23.

(2) Nowhere in the NT did the apostles or anyone else hear any confessions.

They didn’t perform any wedding ceremonies, either. So what?

(3) If that authority was given to the apostles they died years ago.

Yes, they did. So what?

(4) Nowhere in the NT are priests hearing any confessions. They are sinful men like the people that would be confessed.

There are many things about the Church’s worship that are not recorded in scripture. Again, so what? The Church LIVED these things daily…why was it necessary to write down what everyone experienced and witnessed personally?

As for priests being sinful men, what does that have to do with anything?

(5) Since there’s no animals to killed and sacrificed on the altar, the Roman Catholic church desperately needs this verse, otherwise there’s no need for any priests at all and their whole system is bankrupt.

Wow. We have priests because the NT priesthood models that of the OT and because Jesus established it.

(6) John 20:22 means the same as Mat18:18 Anyone who confesses their sins will be saved, anyone who does not confess their sins will not be saved. And the confessing is to God otherwise 1 John 3:9 above is useless! ED O.

Perhaps you could explain for us how the Apostles determined which sins to forgive and which to retain without actually hearing those sins confessed. Did the Apostles have the gift of reading minds, as well?

 

[Ginger2]

2 Ti 16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

Let’s not overlook the fact that then bible was completely written by the end of the First Century. If your satement were true, then the entire bible would have to NOT be true.

Are you saying the about quote from 2 Tim isn’t true?
That is all I posted, not my words, but Scripture.

So the Fact remains, that except where the KJB matches the words of the Catholic Bible, it is blantly false and untrue. We both know that these words were addressed to the Catholic Bible.

Didn’t I just get thru saying the KJB isn’t very reliable? Maybe it was in the other thread…

As a Protestant I know Bibles are subject to human errors so I don’t depend on one translation over another. I usually use my Catholic Bible when talking with Catholics.

The KJB is just handy being online the way it is. But you have to be careful, it has verses that aren’t really there.

Protestants made chages to the Canon that had been set for at leat 1100 years! Aditionally they made many verse changes.

What’s that saying about people who live in glass houses…

If the canon was set 1100 years before the reformation, then Catholics changed the Bible by removing 3 books.

If the Catholic canon was set 1600 years ago, then the Catholics recently changed the Bible again.

Genesis 3: 15 has read She will crush and been defended and trusted as an accurate and literal translation for about 1600 years.

This translation has been defended in the footnotes of the DRB saying: Quote: “It is through both Jesus and Mary that Satan was crushed,”

Yet, two popes Pope declared Jerome’s Vulgate in error, the verse should read “He” not she.

Here is the link:

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JPTHESAU.HTM
Apostolic Constitution SCRIPTURARUM THESAURUS
Pope John Paul II

Here is an excerpt: "In realizing this revision, “the old text of the Vulgate edition was taken into consideration word for word, namely, whenever the original texts are accurately rendered, such as they are found in modern critical editions; however the text was prudently improved, whenever it departs from them or interprets them less correctly.”

Ginger

 

[Ginger2]

Please tell me you mis-spoke here. The Torah, by all standards are simply the first 5 books of the Bible. The Law. So yes, all 3 groups held the same 5 books of the Torah.

Thank you.

But the OT Scriptures are a different story. The Pharisees had quite an expanded list, not closed by any means. They referred to them as the Law and the Prophets.

…and the Psalms.
Luk 24:44 And he said unto them, These [are] the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and [in] the prophets, and [in] the psalms, concerning me.

You do realize Jesus was a member of the Pharisaic sect of Jews, don’t you?

The Sadducees and the Samaritans limited their Scriptures to only the Torah. This is one of the reasons Paul’s admonition of believing in the Resurrection of the Dead caused quite a stir in Acts when he’s brought in front of the Sanhedrin.

The Sanhedrin was a council consisting of both Pharisees and Sadducees.
We do not know exactly what the Sadducees considered “canon”.

According to the Talmud, the Sadducees used the other books of the Bible in Scriptural and doctrinal debates. How and why would they refer to scriptures they didn’t consider Holy?

Ginger

 

[Ginger2]

Perhaps the answer is as follows:

Leviticus 5:5-6
5 " 'When anyone is guilty in any of these ways, he must confess in what way he has sinned 6 and, as a penalty for the sin he has committed, he must bring to the LORD a female lamb or goat from the flock as a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin.

Here’s the big problem: you stop at a point that you think proves your point of view. The Scriptures need to be kept in context.

The sinner must confess:
Acknowledge he did something wrong or neglected to do something right - first to himself, and to God, then to the person he wronged

Mat 5:23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;
24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.

Notice this doesn’t say “If thou rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; Leave thy gift before the altar, and confess to the priest - then come and offer thy gift.”

ALSO:

Notice that the Word of God says, “the priest shall make atonement.” Clearly in the Old Testament, the priesthood existed to offer sacrifices and make atonement for the sins committed by the people. Does this idea continue in the New Testament?

Hebrews 10:1
The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves.

You should have read on…

Hbr 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once [for all].
11 And every priest standeth **daily ministering and offering **oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12 But this man Jesus], after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
18 Now where remission of these [is,** there is] no more offering for sin.
19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,

The above verses do not state Jesus replaced the Jewish priests for gentile priests. It says we have a new Priest, Christ Jesus, who made one offering for all time.

Ginger

 

[NotWorthy]

Hi NotWorthy, nowhere in the OT does it state that people confessed their sins to a priest. Here’s what Lev 5 states: " then whoever is guilty in any of these cases he shall confess the sin he has incurred" (TO WHOM TO THE PRIEST OR GOD) You don’t know as well as I don’t know. That’s why it takes other verse or verses to make it clear. This is what PS 32:6 states , “I will confess my transgressions to the Lord.” PS 25:18, David prays to God,“Look upon my afflictions and my distress and take away my sins.”, 1 Chron 21:8, Then David said to God," I have sinned greatly by doing this. Now I beg. take away the guilt of your servant.I have done a foolish thing." Lk 5:20 The teachers of the Law knew that only God forgives sins. As you can see, there was/is no Jewish tradition of confessing sins to a priest.

This post tells me you did not read my response. I’ll type it again and this time I’ll type it real slow.
I don’t have to read any into that verse. I can tell you that it was Jewish tradition to confess their sins to the priest when performing the rights necessary in Leviticus 5. It was a practice of the Jews during and before Jesus’ time to confess their transgression to the priest when performing the rites described in Leviticus 5.

Confessing to a priest has to be a NT invention since there’s no record of it in the OT. And there’s no need of it in the NT. 1 John 3:9, states,“No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God.”

I’m going to type it again.

I don’t have to read any into that verse. I can tell you that it was Jewish tradition to confess their sins to the priest when performing the rights necessary in Leviticus 5. It was a practice of the Jews during and before Jesus’ time to confess their transgression to the priest when performing the rites described in Leviticus 5.

. John 20:22 (1) It does not say in Jesus’ name. (2) Nowhere in the NT did the apostles or anyone else hear any confessions. (3) If that authority was given to the apostles they died years ago.

So. Do you agree that their was a divinely given authority to forgive sins in Jesus’ Name? And by saying, “In Jesus’ Name”, I am simply showing that they were forgiving sins “with the authority of Jesus”. In other words, “In Jesus Name” means “with the authority of Jesus”. Rabbi’s recognized this term. A student of Gamaliel, for instance, would teach things to others “in Gamaliel’s Name” when that student would teach what he learned from Gamaliel.

.(4) Nowhere in the NT are priests hearing any confessions. They are sinful men like the people that would be confessed. (5) Since there’s no animals to killed and sacrificed on the altar, the Roman Catholic church desperately needs this verse, otherwise there’s no need for any priests at all and their whole system is bankrupt.

Once you answer my question to your point (3), I’ll continue along this line of thinking.

.(6) John 20:22 means the same as Mat18:18 Anyone who confesses their sins will be saved, anyone who does not confess their sins will not be saved. And the confessing is to God otherwise 1 John 3:9 above is useless! ED O.

What does 1 John 3:9 - No one who is begotten by God commits sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot sin because he is begotten by God - have to do with confession? Do you admit that you sin?

 

[NotWorthy]

…and the Psalms.
Luk 24:44 And he said unto them, These [are] the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and [in] the prophets, and [in] the psalms, concerning me.

Yes, I agree that the Psalms were part of the Scriptures.

You do realize Jesus was a member of the Pharisaic sect of Jews, don’t you?

I’m not sure that Jesus ever indicated that He was Pharisaic or what. What makes you say this?

The Sanhedrin was a council consisting of both Pharisees and Sadducees.

Correct, and the Sadducees did not look to books after the Torah (the big 5!) as Holy Scripture. This is why they didn’t believe in the resurrection of the body. This is why Paul was able to stir up such a big broo-ha-ha when he claimed that, as a Pharisee, he of course believed in the Resurrection.

We do not know exactly what the Sadducees considered “canon”.

According to the Talmud, the Sadducees used the other books of the Bible in Scriptural and doctrinal debates. How and why would they refer to scriptures they didn’t consider Holy?
Ginger

Because they considered them valuable at best, but not Scriptural. I’ll look at my notes (I"ve got them somewhere!) that testifies to this fact. I think more was learned about the Pharisees and Sadducees within the last 100 years (maybe in the writings of the DSS), than the previous 1500 years. This difference in their canons was one of the bones of contention between the two.

This is why you may notice that, when Jesus argues Scripture with the Pharisees that He uses the entire Old Testament, while His Scriptural references with the Sadducees include only the Torah.

 

[NotWorthy]

Here’s the big problem: you stop at a point that you think proves your point of view. The Scriptures need to be kept in context.

The sinner must confess:
Acknowledge he did something wrong or neglected to do something right - first to himself, and to God, then to the person he wronged

Mat 5:23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;
24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.

Notice this doesn’t say “If thou rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; Leave thy gift before the altar, and confess to the priest - then come and offer thy gift.”

Well, that’s because there wasn’t a priesthood created in the New Covenant Church yet. Of course, it would have been rather difficult, considering there wasn’t a New Covenant Church yet!

 

[Ginger2]

Well, that’s because there wasn’t a priesthood created in the New Covenant Church yet. Of course, it would have been rather difficult, considering there wasn’t a New Covenant Church yet!

lol That was a belly laugh!!!

The obvious can sometimes be so elusive. It happens to all of from time to time.

Jesus had not yet fulfilled the new covenant. Jesus was still following mosaic Law.

The Scriptures show he and his disciples continued to obey the Law until after Jesus’ death and resurrection.

You’re trying to have it both ways again…:tsktsk:

Ginger

 

[Ginger2]

Yes, I agree that the Psalms were part of the Scriptures.

Correct, and the Sadducees did not look to books after the Torah …

More baseless speculation.

Show me the proof. Not heresay…Oops, you can’t.

Ginger

 

[NotWorthy]

lol That was a belly laugh!!!

The obvious can sometimes be so elusive. It happens to all of from time to time.

Jesus had not yet fulfilled the new covenant. Jesus was still following mosaic Law.

The Scriptures show he and his disciples continued to obey the Law until after Jesus’ death and resurrection.

You’re trying to have it both ways again…:tsktsk:

Ginger

No, Jesus did not instruct the Apostles on the leadership of the New Church this early in His ministry. It seems like (in my opinion), we don’t see any instruction on such as this until, first, when He sends them out in pairs, but it seem more focused after Jesus declared Peter the Rock (on His final journey to Jerusalem).

For Jesus to tell these Jews, roughly 2 years before His death that they need to go to confession, but first wait until He dies and resurrects and ascends and the Holy Spirit comes on the Pentecost… well, you get the picture. At least I hope you do.

 

[NotWorthy]

More baseless speculation.

Show me the proof. Not heresay…Oops, you can’t.

Ginger

I’ll find it in my notes. But not until you answer a question that has been dodged for 5 pages.

Did Jesus give the Apostles the authority to forgive sins in His Name, as Scripture indicates in John 20:20-23?

 

[NotWorthy]

More baseless speculation.

Show me the proof. Not heresay…Oops, you can’t.

Ginger

As a show of good faith, I’ll show you a quick answer on this. This comes from Catholic Answers web site.

The Sadducees thought of themselves as “conservatives,” as the Old Believers. This is because they accepted only the written Law of Moses as authoritative and rejected subsequent revelation. As a result, the Sadducees denied many of the doctrines held by the Pharisees and by Jesus, including the resurrection of the dead, the existence of angels and spirits, and the meting out of rewards and punishment after death. These beliefs were thought by the Sadducees to be Zoroastrian corruptions of the authentic faith of Israel.

I’ll see if I can find authentic proof of this, but I’m still waiting on an answer on John 20.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hbr 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once [for all].
11 And every priest standeth **daily ministering and offering **oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12 But this man Jesus], after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
18 Now where remission of these [is,** there is] no more offering for sin.

19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,

The above verses do not state Jesus replaced the Jewish priests for gentile priests. It says we have a new Priest, Christ Jesus, who made one offering for all time.

GingerJesus established the priesthood when He gave the Apostles the authority to offer the sacrifice of the mass. He said, “Do this in remembrance of me…”. Naturally, He did not tell them to do something without giving them the wherewithall to do it. This means ordination.

I realize that you have your hands full trying to explain all the erroneous statements you are making in various threads, so it is unlikely you will actually read anything to which you are referred. Nonetheless, I offer the following for the benefit of those who may be interested:

Did Jesus Give Priests to the Church?
By Kenneth J. Howell
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0404sbs.asp

---