How To Read and Understand The Bible

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by Guanophore
I also pointed out that confessing to a priest does not mean we are not confessing directly to God. The priest is there in the Person of Christ. It is not as though God is somehow not present!

Here’s our problem. You believe what someone told you that the priest is there in the Person of Christ. I can’t find that in the Bible and you can’t prove it by oral tradition. That’s why Jesus preached against tradition.

I

dont’ see a difference. Did you think that, since Catholics confess to a priest, that God is not working in their lives to sanctify them, and lead them to make reparation for their sins?

When I read in the Bible we are to confess our sins to God, doesn’t that make it a sin for me not to obey God’s written word. I never found anywhere in the Bible where it tells me to confess to a priest.

it is a false dichotomy. A Catholic does not confess to a priest “instead” of to God, but to priest, who is in the Person of Christ. And no, it has not been since the Reformation. Confession has been this way since the NT times. During the Reformation, certain persons decided they did not need to seek God’s grace in the manner He set up, and substituted other ways.

When I read the “Our Sunday Visitor’s Catholic Encyclopedia” on pages 740 & 741 There’s a whole smorgasbord of ideas on the Sacrament of Penance from wearing sackcloth and ashes to Irish monks
in the eighth century being influenced by Eastern customs. but most disturbingly some of penitents were required to do works in hopes that it would change their lives a direct contradiction to the Scriptures. God’s free give of salvation and the Holy Spirit is what changes lives.

quote =EdOsiecki;6347481] Talking to a secretary is NOT talking directly to the boss!

I guess that all depends up on the secretary. I have found that it is sometimnes better!
For some reason you have a false notion that Catholics do not also do this.

You aren’t saying that’s it’s better to go to a priest than to God are you? Maybe God doesn’t see it that way. And my answer to the other part, Why is it that Catholics always have to have a middle person to do thier work. In this case it’s the priest, other times it’s Mary and the saints which contradicts Scriptures. God wants us to draw near to Him Heb 10:19-22, 1 Tim 2:5. How can one draw near to God by using other people? This confuses me?

Well, we read it differently, don’t we? Besides, Catholics know that all the Apostolic Teachings are not found in scripture. This is why it was so important to hold the traditions, just as they were delivered.

If this were true why didn’t the Catholic church make written records of all the oral traditions so we could see what they are? It seems rather strange that they were so concerned about getting the Bible completed and then depend on oral traditions? Didn’t they know that it would help future generations? Paul had that much common sense by doing all his writings !

I think you need to re-read your Leviticus about the role of the priests in the confession of sins. They confessed their sins to the priest, and the priest made atonement for them

I think you better go back and re-read Lev 5, It does not say confessed to a priest.The priest was there to handle the bloody animal and sprinkle the blood. Nowhere in the rules handed down by God does it say for them to hear confessions. And God was very precise! He would have done so as you now claim John 20 does.

The animal sacrificial system was completed by the death of the Lamb of God. After He made satisfaction for sins, there was no longer any reason to go to the temple or slaughter an animal.

You got that right! ----There was no further use of priests. As there’s no need for them today. If there were, we would see it in the book of Acts and the other epistles.1 Cor 12:28 states," here is a list of some of the parts He has placed in His church which is His body. Apostles, Prophets, Teachers ,Those who do miracles Healers,Helpers of others, Those who gets others to work together, Those who speak in tongues, No mentioned of priets to hear confessions which one would think is very important…

James the Apostle wrote that the presbyters should be called, annointing and prayer, and the confession of sins. Are you honestly telling me you think that these instructions from James contradict what Jesus wanted?

Some translations says confess our faults to one another.

The church has practiced confession from the beginning. To say that this was contrary to what Jesus wanted is the same as saying that Jesus was unable to direct them away from this mistake.

There was no mistake while Jesus was alive, it all started after he ascended to heaven.

What got them through was the Teaching of the Apostles that was preserved in Sacred Tradition.

You can’t prove that. God guided the early church directly in messages in tongues and the letters of the Apostles. period. Jesus taught against tradition and so did Paul. ED O.

 

[guanophore]

Here’s our problem. You believe what someone told you that the priest is there in the Person of Christ. I can’t find that in the Bible and you can’t prove it by oral tradition. That’s why Jesus preached against tradition.

The fact that you cannot find or recognize something in the bible that I can find does not equat to it being wrong. I am sorry that you are unable to see these things, but it might have to do with having made up your mind in advance that they are not there.

Sacred Tradition, like Scripture, is not subject to the standards of scientific “proofs”. It is revelation from God, and is above the “proofs” of modern science. You can accept it or not, your choice, but your “proofs” do not apply when God is revealing Himself to mankind.

Jesus did not preach against tradition. He believed in and followed tradition Himself. He preached against disobedience, and placing one’s ideas of what is right above the revelation of God. What you don’t seem to realize, Ed, is that you are doing that very thing. You are clinging to your traditions, rather that accept ing the revelation of God about Himself.

IWhen I read in the Bible we are to confess our sins to God, doesn't that make it a sin for me not to obey God's written word.  I never found anywhere in the Bible where it tells  me to confess to a priest.

Did someone tell you not to confess to God? I think you are creating a false dichotomy here. You seem to believe that making a confession to God in the presence of another person means you did not confess to God?

 When I read the "Our Sunday Visitor's Catholic Encyclopedia"  on pages 740 & 741 There's a whole smorgasbord of ideas on the  Sacrament of Penance from wearing sackcloth and ashes to Irish monks

in the eighth century being influenced by Eastern customs. but most disturbingly some of penitents were required to do works in hopes that it would change their lives a direct contradiction to the Scriptures.

You believe that the Scriptures contradict the fact that doing good works will change a persons life?

If this is true, you certainly do have some strange perceptions about scripture. It is no wonder you have trouble “finding” these principles in the pages.

God's free give of salvation and the Holy Spirit is what changes lives.

Indeed yes!

He has chosen to distribute that gift to His Church through the sacrament of confession, among other ways.

You aren’t saying that’s it’s better to go to a priest than to God are you? Maybe God doesn’t see it that way.

There are some sins that are mortal, and we are not to pray for those.

And my answer to the other part, Why is it that Catholics always have to have a middle person to do thier work. In this case it’s the priest, other times it’s Mary and the saints which contradicts Scriptures.

Catholics follow the teaching of the Apostles, who taught that God works through people.

It is an error to think that Catholics “always have to have a middle person to do their work”. this seems to be a statement of prejudice, or maybe ignorance. I wonder how you came to this conclusion? Have you considered examining your prejudices about Catholicism.?

God wants us to draw near to Him Heb 10:19-22, 1 Tim 2:5. How can one draw near to God by using other people? This confuses me?

I understand your confusion. I think you are having trouble with the incarnational principle. The real question would be, then, why did Jesus come in the flesh? Why did He not just appear as a pillar of fire, or cloud? Why did He appoint Apostles, and work through them to establish His Church?

 

[guanophore]

Here’s our problem. You believe what someone told you that the priest is there in the Person of Christ. I can’t find that in the Bible and you can’t prove it by oral tradition.

That may be a problem for you, Ed, but it is not “our problem”. I do not think that the Bible was ever intended to be a full compendium of the Teaching of Jesus.

I believe that Jesus commmitted His Word to the Apostles, and that it has been preserved by the power of the HS guarding and guiding the Church, just as He promised.

If  this were true why didn't the Catholic church make written records of all the oral traditions so we could see what they are?

I doubt there are any Sacred Traditions that cannot be found in writing. One of the earliest written that references confession is the Didache.

It seems rather strange that they were so concerned about getting the Bible completed and then depend on oral traditions?

I dont find anything strange about that at all. What about it do you find “strange”?

Didn't they know that it would help future generations?  Paul had that much common sense by doing all his writings !

Paul had no idea that his letters would become part of the New Testament. If he did, he would have written a catechism, instead of specific letters to address specific problems.

I think you better go back and re-read Lev 5, It does not say confessed to a priest.The priest was there to handle the bloody animal and sprinkle the blood. Nowhere in the rules handed down by God does it say for them to hear confessions. And God was very precise! He would have done so as you now claim John 20 does.

We can get into this if you want. I think it is outside the scope of the thread. The person who needs atonement comes forward and confesses his sin in the presence of the priest.
I know this is hard to do, but it is God’s way of healing our shame. What are you most reluctant to confess to another person? That is a rhetorical ?, of course, but reaches to the heart of most resistance to what God has ordained.

You got that right! ----There was no further use of priests. As there’s no need for them today. If there were, we would see it in the book of Acts and the other epistles.1 Cor 12:28 states," here is a list of some of the parts He has placed in His church which is His body. Apostles, Prophets, Teachers ,Those who do miracles Healers,Helpers of others, Those who gets others to work together, Those who speak in tongues, No mentioned of priets to hear confessions which one would think is very important…

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

Not all priests exercise the gifts of prophesy or teaching. Some priests are very poor administrators. There are all kinds of service in the Body, and the Spirit gives to each individually as He wills.

It seems that you have decided that you have no need for a priest. Whether Jesus established a priesthood or not appears to be irrelevant to you.

In NT times, confessions were made publicly. We see with Ananias and Sapphira an example of public accounting for sin. As the church grew, confessions were transferred from a public venue to a private one.

Some translations says confess our faults to one another.

Yes. Why would you NOT want to confess them to the person who had been authorized by God to absolve them? I mean, I am sure you can confess them to whomever, but if there is a special grace available, why not use it?

 There was no mistake while Jesus was alive, it all started after he ascended to heaven.

It seems that what you are saying is that the powerful Jesus we see in the letters in the book of Revelation is really not in charge of His Church after all. He was able to show Peter that it was ok to let the Gentiles be baptized, but He was too weak or disinterested to show the Apostles that they should not be hearing confessions and absolving sins in His name.

You can’t prove that. God guided the early church directly in messages in tongues and the letters of the Apostles. period. Jesus taught against tradition and so did Paul. ED O.

No, Jesus did not teach against tradition, and neither did Paul. Both affirmed and practiced Sacred Traditions. You are clinging to traditions that are different than the ones that were taught and practiced by the early church.

 

[PJM]

=EdOsiecki;6347481]Hi Guanophore
you must have missed what I said and that is I confessed my sin directly to God. Catholics confess their sins to priests. God forgave my sin and told me to go an apologize.

There’s a difference here God set me up (FIX) He’s dealing with my quick temper and patience. He’ll keep setting me up until I get rid of my quick temper and have more patience per Phil1:6. When that happens God will find another area in my life set me up (FIX) until I get rid of it too. That’s being sancticfied making me more and more like Jesus. Not just merely going to confession to confess a sin.

It’s not false and I’m not creating it. It’s been around since the reformation

Talking to a secretary is NOT talking directly to the boss! Yet, she’s the point of access to him too. Direct means exactly what it says direct! My mouth to God’s ear.
You may be making a false statement here. There’s absolutly no Scripture that confirms that in either Testaments.
The first church were all Jews who always confessed directly to God prior to getting saved. Are you trying to tell me that they now switched from God to one another?

.Show me the Scripture reference? I never found one.

In the Lord’s prayer Jesus is teaching His apostles how to pray. That is, Father “forgive us our debts (sins) as we forgive others” If God can hear these prayers can’t He hear us when we then confess to him?. Here Jesus never teaches the apostles to confess their sins to one another.

I don’t understand this statement? Clarify it for me.

The Christian church exsisted for more than 300 years before this took place and they got along well with all the letters Paul and the others wrote.

I have a problem with this. When you speak of “sucessors” I can’t find that in the Bible. What I do find in Mat 28:19 where Jesus tells the apostles to make disciples, that’s people like you and me. ED O.

Hi Ed,

** Mt. 28:19** means PRECISLY and ONLY: “followers.” And yes, that ought to mean us. But what does actaully being a “follower mean?”

** Matt.16: 24** "Then Jesus told his disciples, “If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me” AMEN!

** Rom. 16:26** “but is now disclosed and through the prophetic writings is made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God,** to bring about the obedience of faith --”**

** 1Pet.5:** "Likewise you that are younger be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.”

Matt.7: 24 “Every one then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house upon the rock; And every one who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house upon the sand;”

Ed my friend, again I caution you about choosing isolated passages, and expecting to find GOD"S TEACHING. One can do this and support ones own chosen understanding; but NOT do so and know God’s Will for them.

Ed, you continue in my thoughts and prayers. My God grace you with His Understanding

Pat

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by kepha1
Ed, there is nothing biblical about abolishing the New Testament priesthood.

Hi kepha1, In the O.T. priests had specific duties and rules to follow even to what they shoud wear. Did you know that?----- Can you show me per Scripture at least one rule or duty for the priests in the N.T.?

Protestants CAN interpret the Bible and get it right, even most of the time.

Can you show me the times when they can’t ?

The difference is I can be assured that my interpretation is correct as long as it is in line with the faith community that wrote it in the first place,

The church didn’t write the Bible.------- Paul’s and the other letters were not written by the church and they were available to all. Paul even urged that his letters be read and circulated. . Did you know that?

and the Church who preserved, compiled and proclaimed the scriptures with consistent teaching down through the ages.

That same church that you claim for yourself exclusively belonged to the Prostestants as well. -----They were part of that church until they came out.------ Did you know that?

Protestantism cannot make that claim.

I just did.

Individualism has undermined the unity that Jesus wants for us.

Give me an example.

You can claim that the Holy Spirit instructs you privately because you think you found a verse that supports Individualism, but your private interpretation is wrong because it hasn’t worked.

Wow! -----That’s some statement! ------- Show me precisely why it hasn’t worked in my life.

I am not saying you do not have the Holy Spirit,

Why not ? ----You seem to know everything else about me per above?

I am saying that the Bible does not make individual bible readers with the Holy Spirit to be authorized teachers of the Word.

Then why read the Bible at all! ------If I want to know something about God to whom should I go for answers? ----- Then Jesus must have made a mistake per Mat 4:4?

You have to be ordained.

By whom and where in Scripture?----I do understand that some people do make better teachers per 1Cor 12:28.

I am not saying you have to be ordained to read the bible and and have the Holy Spirit speak to you personally,

Then what are you saying. ----- I’m still trying to figure it out?

and am going by what the Bible
says

Show me where?

and what the Church says

,Where can I find this information?

because the Bible and the Church say the same thing,.

So what your saying here is if I read the Bible it will tell me the same thing as what the church says? -----That must mean that we are back to “square one”, that is, If I read the Bible I’ll know what the church says. Huh??? ED O.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by PJM
Hi Ed,

** Mt. 28:19** means PRECISLY and ONLY: “followers.” And yes, that ought to mean us. But what does actaully being a “follower mean?”

** Matt.16: 24** "Then Jesus told his disciples, “If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me” AMEN!

** Rom. 16:26** “but is now disclosed and through the prophetic writings is made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God,** to bring about the obedience of faith --”**

** 1Pet.5:** "Likewise you that are younger be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.”

Matt.7: 24 “Every one then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house upon the rock; And every one who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house upon the sand;”

Ed my friend, again I caution you about choosing isolated passages, and expecting to find GOD"S TEACHING. One can do this and support ones own chosen understanding; but NOT do so and know God’s Will for them.

Ed, you continue in my thoughts and prayers. My God grace you with His Understanding

Hi Pat and thank you much for your excellent advise here. ---- I agree with it all. ---- It’s Biblical. ---- You see! I got saved on May 4,1974, when I attended a Billy Graham crusade then shortly after that God led me to a prayer meeting where a Catholic Nun prayed for me to received the Holy Spirit. ---- Ever since then, God did a remarkable change in my life just as 2Cor 5:17 states," When someone becomes a Christian he becomes a brand new person inside. He is not the same any more. A new life has begun!" ----That’s exactly what happened to me! ---- What I once liked and did (sin) I now hate vigorously. — Until this time, and I say this very respectfully, I was nothing else but a Catholic church goer, then a Methodist church goer and you name it. ---- Upon getting saved, God gave me a new desire, that is, to read and study the Bible not only by myself but in other church related Bible studies as well.---- You see! As ambitious as I was in business and in music (musician) God turned that around and made me ambitious for Him. ---- But in order to get my attention so that I would get saved, I recomend that you read the book of “Job”. ---- Believe me that willl get anyone’s attention! ---- Since then, even though of such a loss, God has given me a very exciting life, prayers answered, miracles seen, I felt Jesus’ love and cares for me, but most assuredly I know that I have eternal life because God’s word tells me so 1John 5:13, “I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may KNOW that you have eternal life.” ----- So all the Scriptures that I quote, then you retort, then I retort etc. etc. is all nonsense. ---- Salvation is so simple even a child can understand it, that is, if we believe the gospel which is Jesus (God) came to earth, died in our place, paid for ALL of our sins, past, present and future with His Blood, He died and was buried, then was resurrected and He’s now our High Priest in Heaven, then get baptized to begin our new life we are then SAVED.---- Here it is.---- Mark 16:15-16. “Jesus said to His disciples,” Go into all the world and preach the good news (gospel) to all creation. v16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be SAVED but whoever does not believe will be condemned." ---- I did that 36 years ago, and believe me it works!

Pat, God Bless, “Jesus loves you”

Pat,

Pat

 

[NotWorthy]

Ed, regarding the New Covenant priesthood.

Please look up the Old Testament usage of the words. More importantly, look at the context in which they were used.

poiein

anamnesis

meros

And then look at what foot-washing was used for in the Old Testament.

I’ll think you’ll find that Jesus indeed consecrated the Apostles (and Disciples?) as priests during the Last Supper.

 

[guanophore]

In the O.T. priests had specific duties and rules to follow even to what they shoud wear.   Did you know that?-----

The OT forshadows the New. In the OT, we have a general priesthood of all belivers, a ministerial priesthood, and a High Priest. This pattern is fulfilled in the NT.

 Can you show me per Scripture at least one rule or duty for the priests in the N.T.?

1Pe 5:1 The elders therefore among you I exhort, who am a fellow–elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, who am also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:
1Pe 5:2 Tend the flock of God which is among you, exercising the oversight, not of constraint, but willingly, according unto God; nor yet for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;
1Pe 5:3 neither as lording it over the charge allotted to you, but making yourselves ensamples to the flock.

Can you show me the times when they can’t ?

Sure! Do you really not know any believers who have misunderstood any scriptures?

 The church didn't write the Bible.-------  Paul's and the other letters were not written by the church and they were available to all.  Paul even urged that his letters be read and circulated. . Did you know that?

Do you not believe that Paul was a member of the Church when he wrote his letters?

Do you think there are ANY books in the NT that were written by persons who were not members of the Church?

 That same church that you claim for yourself exclusively belonged to the Prostestants as well. -----They were part of that church until they came out.------  Did you know that?

Yes. However, I think I may have missed your point.

Jesus did not instruct the disciples to handle disputes by creating divisions, did He?

   I just did.

Yes, but the claim has no merit. There is not consistency of doctrine among non-CAtholic Christians.

 Give me an example.

You just gave one yourself. When people did not like the way things were, they left the Church founded by Christ, and started their own.

 Then why read the Bible at all! ------If I want to know something about God to whom should I go for answers? ----- Then Jesus must have made a mistake per Mat 4:4?

The Holy Scriptures, being a product of the Catholic Church, are certainly a reliable source of information. However, they are to be read according to the faith by which they were written - the Catholic faith. If they are not, errors of interpretation will occur.

 By whom and where in Scripture?----

Preachers are not self appointed. They are sent. All who are authorized to minister are sent. Can you think of a situation in scripture when they were not?

Show me where? ,Where can I find this information?

“I wrote a letter to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to be in charge, will not recognize our authority.” 3 Jn. 1:9

What authority does the Apostle speak of here? How is it that Diotrephes does not recognize it? Does it seem to you that it matters not to the Apostle that his authority is ignored?

So what your saying here is if I read the Bible it will tell me the same thing as  what the church  says? -----That must mean that we are back to "square one", that is, If I read the Bible I'll know what the church says.  Huh?????    ED O.

If you read the bible in the light of the Teachings of those who penned it, then you will find that there is no contradiction between them. Both of them come from the same Source.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by Guanophore
The fact that you cannot find or recognize something in the bible that I can find does not equat to it being wrong. I am sorry that you are unable to see these things, but it might have to do with having made up your mind in advance that they are not there.

Hi Guanophore, These are very nice statements, but please show me what on earth you are talking about that you found something that I can’t find?

Sacred Tradition, like Scripture, is not subject to the standards of scientific “proofs”. It is revelation from God, and is above the “proofs” of modern science. You can accept it or not, your choice, but your “proofs” do not apply when God is revealing Himself to mankind.

Now I’m sorry, I don’t comprehend? “Sacred Tradition” = " no scientific proof" ??? “is above proofs” ??? “proofs do not apply” ??? Would you please give me some examples.

Jesus did not preach against tradition. He believed in and followed tradition Himself. He preached against disobedience, and placing one’s ideas of what is right above the revelation of God.

If Jesus followed traditions as you say, why then didn’t He scold His disciples for not doing so? That is, the ceremonial handwashing. ---- That was a tradition that should have been kept.---- That’s what the Jews complained about Mat 15:2-9 The Jews complained to Jesus,“Why do your disciples disobey the ancient Jewish traditions?” they demanded. “For they ignore our ritual of ceremonial handwashing before they eat.” ----- In 1Cor 4:6 there was a squabble about Paul and Apollos. Paul then settles the matter and then says, "Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written” Are traditions written? ---- Col 2:8, Paul states,“See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.” ---- Gal 2:14 Paul scolded Peter for trying to force gentiles to follow Jewish traditions, ---- 1Thes 2:13 Paul states,“And we also thank God continually because, when you received the Word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word (traditions) of men, but as it actually is the Word of God.”

What you don’t seem to realize, Ed, is that you are doing that very thing. You are clinging to your traditions, rather that accept ing the revelation of God about Himself

. What traditions are you speaking about that I’m clinging to?

Did someone tell you not to confess to God?

Not to confess to God? ---- Are you sure you are answering what I have posted because it’s to God that I do confess!

I think you are creating a false dichotomy here. You seem to believe that making a confession to God in the presence of another person means you did not confess to God?

Guanophore, the further I read what you have posted here the more convinced I am that you must have me mixed up with someone else. ---- I have no such belief whatsoever?

You believe that the Scriptures contradict the fact that doing good works will change a persons life

The heart of a person has to be changed. ---- And God gave us the method of how that’s to be done, that is, ONLY by the Holy Spirit. ---- The Holy Spirit changes a person from inside out and makes him a new creature in Christ. ---- Read 2Cor 5:17 I did and I can assure it’s true.

If this is true, you certainly do have some strange perceptions about scripture. It is no wonder you have trouble “finding” these principles in the pages.

Speak for yourself sir/mam/ . I have no problem finding anything.

He has chosen to distribute that gift to His Church through the sacrament of confession, among other ways.

You have seven sacraments five are not found in the Bible regardless how hard you look to try to find them.

Catholics follow the teaching of the Apostles, who taught that God works through people.

I believe that too! So why don’t you listen to me. ( just kidding)

It is an error to think that Catholics “always have to have a middle person to do their work”. this seems to be a statement of prejudice, or maybe ignorance. I wonder how you came to this conclusion?

Confessing to a priest for one. It’s not found in the Bible. I found many Scriptures about confessing to God.-----Praying through Mary to reach Jesus is another. I’ve prayed to St. Christopher for travel protection, then in 1953, the church found no such saint exsisted.

Have you considered examining your prejudices about Catholicism.?

I consider prejudices a sin.----- I speak about what the Scriptures say regarless whether you are Catholic, Mormon, Jehovah’s Wit. or any other religion.

I understand your confusion. I think you are having trouble with the incarnational principle. The real question would be, then, why did Jesus come in the flesh? Why did He not just appear as a pillar of fire, or cloud?

Because the BLOOD of Jesus frees us from ALL sins. In the O.T. the priests killed animals and thier blood atoned for man’s sins. In the N.T. Jesus speaks in Mat 26:28, “This is my BLOOD of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” Think about it? ---- Then ask yourself or,“do I have a problem with the incarnational principle for asking such asinine question?”

Why did He appoint Apostles, and work through them to establish His Church?

I suppose because that’s how we now have His written Word which by the way is also Jesus’ name John 1:1. ED O.

 

[kepha1]

Hi Guanophore, These are very nice statements, but please show me what on earth you are talking about that you found something that I can’t find?

Before the canon of the Bible, the Christian Rule of Faith **(TRADITION) **included belief in the Apostolic succession through the Episcopate, the authority of Tradition itself, the authority of Scripture, the three fold ministry (bishop-priest-deacon), the Eucharist as Sacrifice, belief in baptismal regeneration, prayers for the dead, veneration of the Saints, the Seven sacraments, the evangelical counsels, (poverty, chastity and obedience) and others. The historical evidence is there for anyone who wishes to see it.

Apostolic succession through the Episcopate had to exist first before anything was written about it. It has to exist in the form of being handed down.

The authority of Tradition itself had to exist in the form of being handed down. The Bible itself says the “gospel message” was handed down before anyone wrote about it, the existence of the “gospel message” did not depend on what somebody wrote, it depended on Apostolic Teaching where it was first preserved. The bible came form the Church, a church did not come from the Bible.

Apostolic Teaching, that mechanism that preserved the concepts of the Bible, did not vanish after St. John penned Revelation. It still exists within the tradition of Apostolic Succession, and the mechanism of preserving ALL that Jesus taught has been denied by human tradition.

The Eucharist as Sacrifice had to occur first before anything was written about it, so it was handed down first. But is denied by human tradition.

Baptismal regeneration had to exist first in the form of being handed down. But is denied by human tradition.

Prayers for the dead pre-date Christianity as a Jewish tradition and the Jews still practice it, so you can deny the Deuterocanonical books all day, it won’t change historical facts, and it won’t change this pre-biblical traditon the early church practiced and believed that went challenged by human “reformist” tradition 1500 years later.

Veneration of the Saints, it is another Sacred Tradition the Church developed from the Old Testament before the Bible existed. Again, it is human “reformist” tradition that denied the doctrine of the Communion of Saints because the family of God is not a broken home.

The evidence of the existence of Catholic Oral or Sacred Tradition is enormous, but you will never find them if you are content with the mere human traditions of the “reformers”. Protestantism is opposed to Catholic Tradition partially to wrench the Bible from the Church, and support a human tradition of sola scriptura. You can choose to defend and follow human reformist tradition, or you can be a bit more open minded about the Traditions we Catholics hold dear that pre-date the canon of the Bible.

Thank you for your uplifting testimony.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by kepha1
Before the canon of the Bible, the Christian Rule of Faith **(TRADITION) **included belief in the Apostolic succession through the Episcopate, the authority of Tradition itself, the authority of Scripture, the three fold ministry (bishop-priest-deacon), the Eucharist as Sacrifice, belief in baptismal regeneration, prayers for the dead, veneration of the Saints, the Seven sacraments, the evangelical counsels, (poverty, chastity and obedience) and others. The historical evidence is there for anyone who wishes to see it.

Apostolic succession through the Episcopate had to exist first before anything was written about it. It has to exist in the form of being handed down.

The authority of Tradition itself had to exist in the form of being handed down. The Bible itself says the “gospel message” was handed down before anyone wrote about it, the existence of the “gospel message” did not depend on what somebody wrote, it depended on Apostolic Teaching where it was first preserved. The bible came form the Church, a church did not come from the Bible.

Apostolic Teaching, that mechanism that preserved the concepts of the Bible, did not vanish after St. John penned Revelation. It still exists within the tradition of Apostolic Succession, and the mechanism of preserving ALL that Jesus taught has been denied by human tradition.

The Eucharist as Sacrifice had to occur first before anything was written about it, so it was handed down first. But is denied by human tradition.

Baptismal regeneration had to exist first in the form of being handed down. But is denied by human tradition.

Prayers for the dead pre-date Christianity as a Jewish tradition and the Jews still practice it, so you can deny the Deuterocanonical books all day, it won’t change historical facts, and it won’t change this pre-biblical traditon the early church practiced and believed that went challenged by human “reformist” tradition 1500 years later.

Veneration of the Saints, it is another Sacred Tradition the Church developed from the Old Testament before the Bible existed. Again, it is human “reformist” tradition that denied the doctrine of the Communion of Saints because the family of God is not a broken home.

The evidence of the existence of Catholic Oral or Sacred Tradition is enormous, but you will never find them if you are content with the mere human traditions of the “reformers”. Protestantism is opposed to Catholic Tradition partially to wrench the Bible from the Church, and support a human tradition of sola scriptura. You can choose to defend and follow human reformist tradition, or you can be a bit more open minded about the Traditions we Catholics hold dear that pre-date the canon of the Bible.

Hi kepha1, You wrote too much here. The post is limited to only 6,000 characters. There’s no need to write in color it makes it hard to pick out the text for a reply… Ed O.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Hi Kepha1,
I have decided to answer your post 444 this way:

(The canon was written 300 plus years after the fact) ---- (1) Before the canon of the Bible, the Christian Rule of Faith (TRADITION) included belief in the Apostolic succession through the Episcopate,------ Mat 28:19, Jesus’ last command was to make disciples not successors. The list of Popes does not include Paul and the others apostles did they vanish? Eph 2:19-20 states that the church is built on the APOSTLES and PROPHETS and CHRIST the HEAD.------ (2) the authority of Tradition itself ------ From whom did t his authority come from? The Bible doesn‘t state it anywhere. ------ (3) the authority of Scripture,----- We know that came it from God John 1:1 ------ (4) the three fold ministry (bishop-priest-deacon),------ Bishops deacons, elders are mentioned in the Bible. Priests nowhere? The born again believers are of ROYAL priesthood 1 Pet 2:9 ------ (5) the Eucharist as Sacrifice,------ As a remembrance YES of the cross 1Cor 11:24, as a Sacrifice nowhere? ------ (6) belief in baptismal regeneration,----- Baptism regeneration No! Belief in Jesus YES! John 1:11-13, Eph 1:13-14, Acts 16:31 etc.----- (7) prayers for the dead, ----- Heb 9:27 states after death comes judgment. Man has to get born again NOW! It’s too late after death.------ (8) veneration of the Saints,----- Born again believers are saints. Eph 1 , 2Cor 1 etc.----- (9) the Seven sacraments,----- The Bible mentions two, baptism and communion. ----- (10) the evangelical counsels, ----- This is true Acts 15 ----- (11) (poverty, chastity and obedience) and others. ----- Poverty? The Popes and Cardinals lived like kings and in palaces, Chastity ? I recommend that you read “The Dictionary Of Popes” by J.N.D. Kelly . It reads like a TV soap opera. ----- (12) the “historical evidence is there for anyone who wishes to see it. ----- The evidence may be there but it does not support Scripture.------(13) The Bible itself says the “gospel message” was handed down before anyone wrote about it, the existence of the “gospel message” did not depend on what somebody wrote, it depended on Apostolic Teaching where it was first preserved. -----WRONG! Paul states in Gal 1:8, “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned.”------ (14) The bible came form the Church, a church did not come from the Bible. ------ WRONG! Without the Bible (letters of the apostles ) there wouldn’t be a church. ------(15) Prayers for the dead pre-date Christianity as a Jewish tradition and the Jews still practice it, so you can deny the Deuterocanonical books all day, it won’t change historical facts, and it won’t change this pre-biblical traditon the early church practiced and believed that went challenged by human “reformist” tradition 1500 years later.------ The Catholic church get their prayers for the dead doctrine not from Dueterocaonical books , but from the God uninspired book of Maccabees. Heb 9:27 after death judgement -----(16) Veneration of the Saints, it is another Sacred Tradition the Church developed from the Old Testament before the Bible .Again, it is human “reformist” tradition that denied the doctrine of the Communion of Saints because the family of God is not a broken home.----- Why don’t you then pray to Abraham, Abel, Enoch, Noah, Moses, Elijah. We know for sure that they are in heaven. Some time ago, the church had me praying to St. Christopher, then in 1953 he got lost somewhere. How’s that for your broken home?----- (17)The evidence of the existence of Catholic Oral or Sacred Tradition is enormous, but you will never find them if you are content with the mere human traditions of the “reformers”. Protestantism is opposed to Catholic Tradition partially to wrench the Bible from the Church, and support a human tradition of sola scriptura. You can choose to defend and follow human reformist tradition, or you can be a bit more open minded about the Traditions we Catholics hold dear that pre-date the canon of the Bible.----- The Catholic church is disingenuous when they claim that they had given us the Bible. It was compiled more than 300 years after the fact. Sola Scripture is very important because it contains God’s Word period. No add-ons, Mass, purgatory, confession to priests, Indulgences, Scapular, Praying to saints and the list goes on. Ed O.

 

[NotWorthy]

Hi Kepha1,
I have decided to answer your post 444 this way:

(The canon was written 300 plus years after the fact) ---- (1) Before the canon of the Bible, the Christian Rule of Faith (TRADITION) included belief in the Apostolic succession through the Episcopate,------ Mat 28:19, Jesus’ last command was to make disciples not successors. The list of Popes does not include Paul and the others apostles did they vanish? Eph 2:19-20 states that the church is built on the APOSTLES and PROPHETS and CHRIST the HEAD.------ (2) the authority of Tradition itself ------ From whom did t his authority come from? The Bible doesn‘t state it anywhere. ------ (3) the authority of Scripture,----- We know that came it from God John 1:1 ------ (4) the three fold ministry (bishop-priest-deacon),------ Bishops deacons, elders are mentioned in the Bible. Priests nowhere? The born again believers are of ROYAL priesthood 1 Pet 2:9 ------ **(5) the Eucharist as Sacrifice,------ As a remembrance YES of the cross 1Cor 11:24, as a Sacrifice nowhere? ------ **(6) belief in baptismal regeneration,----- Baptism regeneration No! Belief in Jesus YES! John 1:11-13, Eph 1:13-14, Acts 16:31 etc.----- (7) prayers for the dead, ----- Heb 9:27 states after death comes judgment. Man has to get born again NOW! It’s too late after death.------ (8) veneration of the Saints,----- Born again believers are saints. Eph 1 , 2Cor 1 etc.----- (9) the Seven sacraments,----- The Bible mentions two, baptism and communion. ----- (10) the evangelical counsels, ----- This is true Acts 15 ----- (11) (poverty, chastity and obedience) and others. ----- Poverty? The Popes and Cardinals lived like kings and in palaces, Chastity ? I recommend that you read “The Dictionary Of Popes” by J.N.D. Kelly . It reads like a TV soap opera. ----- (12) the “historical evidence is there for anyone who wishes to see it. ----- The evidence may be there but it does not support Scripture.------(13) The Bible itself says the “gospel message” was handed down before anyone wrote about it, the existence of the “gospel message” did not depend on what somebody wrote, it depended on Apostolic Teaching where it was first preserved. -----WRONG! Paul states in Gal 1:8, “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned.”------ (14) The bible came form the Church, a church did not come from the Bible. ------ WRONG! Without the Bible (letters of the apostles ) there wouldn’t be a church. ------(15) Prayers for the dead pre-date Christianity as a Jewish tradition and the Jews still practice it, so you can deny the Deuterocanonical books all day, it won’t change historical facts, and it won’t change this pre-biblical traditon the early church practiced and believed that went challenged by human “reformist” tradition 1500 years later.------ The Catholic church get their prayers for the dead doctrine not from Dueterocaonical books , but from the God uninspired book of Maccabees. Heb 9:27 after death judgement -----(16) Veneration of the Saints, it is another Sacred Tradition the Church developed from the Old Testament before the Bible .Again, it is human “reformist” tradition that denied the doctrine of the Communion of Saints because the family of God is not a broken home.----- Why don’t you then pray to Abraham, Abel, Enoch, Noah, Moses, Elijah. We know for sure that they are in heaven. Some time ago, the church had me praying to St. Christopher, then in 1953 he got lost somewhere. How’s that for your broken home?----- (17)The evidence of the existence of Catholic Oral or Sacred Tradition is enormous, but you will never find them if you are content with the mere human traditions of the “reformers”. Protestantism is opposed to Catholic Tradition partially to wrench the Bible from the Church, and support a human tradition of sola scriptura. You can choose to defend and follow human reformist tradition, or you can be a bit more open minded about the Traditions we Catholics hold dear that pre-date the canon of the Bible.----- The Catholic church is disingenuous when they claim that they had given us the Bible. It was compiled more than 300 years after the fact. Sola Scripture is very important because it contains God’s Word period. No add-ons, Mass, purgatory, confession to priests, Indulgences, Scapular, Praying to saints and the list goes on. Ed O.

Regarding objection #5, I’d like for you to take a look at my post #441, for I think a further discussion on that will reveal that Jesus is talking about celebrating the Lords Supper in His future Church is ALL about Sacrifice.

Here is post #441

Ed, regarding the New Covenant priesthood.

Please look up the Old Testament usage of the words. More importantly, look at the context in which they were used.

poiein

anamnesis

meros

And then look at what foot-washing was used for in the Old Testament.

I’ll think you’ll find that Jesus indeed consecrated the Apostles (and Disciples?) as priests during the Last Supper.

Regarding 15-17, be careful my brother. You are beginning to show your spots!

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by NotWorthy
Regarding objection #5, I’d like for you to take a look at my post #441, for I think a further discussion on that will reveal that Jesus is talking about celebrating the Lords Supper in His future Church is ALL about Sacrifice.

Hi NotWorthy, The Lord’s Supper/ the Cross is the Christians Passover. The Cross is history which can not be repeated.— Heb 9:28, “so Christ was sacrificed ONCE to take away the sins of many people,” ---- So in the Sacrament of Communion we don’t repeat (the sacrifice) what was done on the Cross, we celebrate the REMEMBRANCE of what He did.—1Cor 11:24 Paul repeats Jesus’ statement, “----This is my body, which is for you; do this in REMEMBRANCE of me.”----- Just like the Jews celebrate their Passover in REMEMBRANCE of what God did for them.(which is history that can’t be reperated . ------Think about this! ------ The Catholic catechism #1367 states,“The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice”------ it goes on to say,“In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered Himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an UN-BLOODY manner” ------ My question is this? ----- At Mass, In the Eucharist transubstantiation takes place which changes the wine to the actual BLOOD. ------ How then can there be in one single sacrifice be both actual BLOOD taking place and UN-BLOODY sacrifice at the same time?

Regarding 15-17, be careful my brother. You are beginning to show your spots!

I didn’t mean to be disrespectful, if you feel that I have and I can see that I may have, for that I sincerely apologize. What I meant is those items are not found in the Bible. Yet I’m sure that Jesus knew about Proverbs 30:6, which states, “Do not add to His words or He will rebuke you and prove you a liar.” Then He goes on to say in Luke 8:21, “My mother and brothers are those who hear God’s WORD and put it into practice.” In Mat 24:35 Jesus speaks, "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my WORDS will never pass away. That being said, He wants us to follow His Word. I can’t see why Jesus would want us to follow anything else when He doesn’t give even the slightest hint to do so. ED O.

 

[NotWorthy]

Hi NotWorthy, The Lord’s Supper/ the Cross is the Christians Passover. The Cross is history which can not be repeated.— Heb 9:28, “so Christ was sacrificed ONCE to take away the sins of many people,” ---- So in the Sacrament of Communion we don’t repeat (the sacrifice) what was done on the Cross, we celebrate the REMEMBRANCE of what He did.—1Cor 11:24 Paul repeats Jesus’ statement, “----This is my body, which is for you; do this in REMEMBRANCE of me.”----- Just like the Jews celebrate their Passover in REMEMBRANCE of what God did for them.(which is history that can’t be reperated . ------Think about this! ------ The Catholic catechism #1367 states,“The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice”------ it goes on to say,“In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered Himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an UN-BLOODY manner” ------ My question is this? ----- At Mass, In the Eucharist transubstantiation takes place which changes the wine to the actual BLOOD. ------ How then can there be in one single sacrifice be both actual BLOOD taking place and UN-BLOODY sacrifice at the same time?

Ed, I didn’t ask you to regurgitate what you’ve been taught to by your church leaders. I’m asking you to think outside the box. Look at the Old Testament contexts of the words I’ve listed:

Ed, regarding the New Covenant priesthood.

Please look up the Old Testament usage of the words. More importantly, look at the context in which they were used.

poiein

anamnesis

meros

And then look at what foot-washing was used for in the Old Testament.

I’ll think you’ll find that Jesus indeed consecrated the Apostles (and Disciples?) as priests during the Last Supper.

You’ll find these words are used dozens, if not hundreds, of times in the Old Testament. But they are all used in the same context. I’d like to see if you can find this context.

I didn’t mean to be disrespectful, if you feel that I have and I can see that I may have, for that I sincerely apologize. What I meant is those items are not found in the Bible. Yet I’m sure that Jesus knew about Proverbs 30:6, which states, “Do not add to His words or He will rebuke you and prove you a liar.” Then He goes on to say in Luke 8:21, “My mother and brothers are those who hear God’s WORD and put it into practice.” In Mat 24:35 Jesus speaks, "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my WORDS will never pass away. That being said, He wants us to follow His Word. I can’t see why Jesus would want us to follow anything else when He doesn’t give even the slightest hint to do so. ED O.

I don’t mind, nor do I get upset at often-times perceived insults. I just know that some of my brothers and sisters on this site will get on their high-horse if they think you are insulting Mother Church.

Regarding, “Adding to His words”, if Jesus left behind an authority to bind and loose, which the Catholic Church believes He did, wouldn’t the Church have the authority to make rules under that authority given to Her?

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by NotWorthy
Ed, I didn’t ask you to regurgitate what you’ve been taught to by your church leaders. I’m asking you to think outside the box. Look at the Old Testament contexts of the words I’ve listed:
You’ll find these words are used dozens, if not hundreds, of times in the Old Testament. But they are all used in the same context. I’d like to see if you can find this context.

What you failed to tell me is since these words are not found in the dictionary how would you expect me to answer you ?

I don’t mind, nor do I get upset at often-times perceived insults. I just know that some of my brothers and sisters on this site will get on their high-horse if they think you are insulting Mother Church.

My intentions are not to insult but to question. In the O.T. God made what He wanted done very clear. But the leaders (Pharisees and Sadducees with their High Priests) added so much more (rules) that Jesus said that even they thenseves weren’t able to follow. Now when I read the books of Acts and the Epistles I can’t find much of what goes on in the R.C. Church today. Isn’t this a similar situatuion?

Regarding, “Adding to His words”, if Jesus left behind an authority to bind and loose, which the Catholic Church believes He did, wouldn’t the Church have the authority to make rules under that authority given to Her?

Here’s why I have a problem with what you state here. Eph 2:19-20 very clearly states that God’s church is built on the foudation of the Apostles and Prophets with Jesus as the head. In Mat 18:18 Jesus gave ALL the apostles the authority to bind and loosen. Since they are all dead now, what more is there to bind and loosen that they haven’t mentioned in God’ Word? Now consider what Jesus has to say per Mark 16:17, He told the Eleven to go into all the world and preach the Good News (gospel). “whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” The whole purpose of the church is to get people saved and to heaven. That being said, why then all the extra rules that are being practiced by the R/C. Church when Jesus mention only BELIEVE the GOSPEL? ED O.

 

[guanophore]

Now I’m sorry, I don’t comprehend? “Sacred Tradition” = " no scientific proof" ??? “is above proofs” ??? “proofs do not apply” ??? Would you please give me some examples.

You seem to be demanding that we “prove” what God has revealed. I submit to you that the revelation by God if Himself is above and beyond your desire for proof.

If Jesus followed traditions as you say, why then didn’t He scold His disciples for not doing so?

There is nothing wrong with tradition itself. When the following of tradition interferes with God’s desires, it becomes a problem. You don’t seem to know the difference between Sacred Tradition,and human traditions.

That is, the ceremonial handwashing. ---- That was a tradition that should have been kept.---- That’s what the Jews complained about Mat 15:2-9 The Jews complained to Jesus,“Why do your disciples disobey the ancient Jewish traditions?” they demanded. “For they ignore our ritual of ceremonial handwashing before they eat.”

CONTEXT Ed. Do you remember the circumstances surrounding this?

Do you honestly believe that Jesus and the Apostles never washed their hands before eating?

----- In 1Cor 4:6 there was a squabble about Paul and Apollos. Paul then settles the matter and then says, "Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written”

Context again Ed. The Apostle is referring to the passage above where he has just given examples and instructions.

Are traditions written? ---- Col 2:8, Paul states,“See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.”

I doubt there are any Sacred Traditions that are not referenced in writing somewhere.

You seem to be assuming that human tradition is the only kind?

---- Gal 2:14 Paul scolded Peter for trying to force gentiles to follow Jewish traditions, ----

No, I don’t think so .

1Thes 2:13 Paul states,“And we also thank God continually because, when you received the Word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word (traditions) of men, but as it actually is the Word of God.”

This is a good example. The Word of God committed to the Church is Sacred Tradition. It does not come from man, but from God. That is why it is called “Sacred”.

. What traditions are you speaking about that I’m clinging to?

That there is no valid Word of God in the Church - no Sacred Tradition. You have espoused the human tradition that all tradition is a problem.

Speak for yourself sir/mam/ . I have no problem finding anything.

By whom and where in Scripture?

Show me where?

Where can I find this information?

Then what are you saying. ----- I’m still trying to figure it out?

Ok, sorry. I thought you were.

You have seven sacraments five are not found in the Bible regardless how hard you look to try to find them.

Well, speak for yourself, Ed. We can find them no problem! The fact that you don’t see them may be a result of your anti-catholic blinders.

I consider prejudices a sin.-----  I speak about what the Scriptures say regarless whether you are Catholic, Mormon, Jehovah's Wit. or any other religion.

Are you claiming that you are not prejudiced, because if you were, that would be a sin?

I suppose because that’s how we now have His written Word which by the way is also Jesus’ name John 1:1. ED O.

You have the written word because the Catholic church produced it for you. It came out of the Sacred Traditions,

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by guanophore
There is nothing wrong with tradition itself. When the following of tradition interferes with God’s desires, it becomes a problem. You don’t seem to know the difference between Sacred Tradition,and human traditions.

If you think so then explain Sacred Tradition vs. human tradition…----- I’ll listen!.

Do you honestly believe that Jesus and the Apostles never washed their hands before eating?

This has nothing to do with what I believe. ---- The Jews were there. ---- That’s why they complained.---- They were mad about something.

I doubt there are any Sacred Traditions that are not referenced in writing somewhere.

Well where are they? ---- The RC Church had 2000 years time to compile and publish them somewhere for them to be read. ---- After all, they are the ones who speak about them.

Well, speak for yourself, Ed. We can find them no problem! The fact that you don’t see them may be a result of your anti-catholic blinders.

"anti-catholic blinders ??? "----- I told you that I consider prejudice to be a sin. ---- That ought to tell you something shouldn’t it?

You have the written word because the Catholic church produced it for you. It came out of the Sacred Traditions

For over 300 plus years the Christians got along well with the copies of the churches ( Paul’s and others) letters. ---- They didn’t need the Catholic church to produce anything. ---- There are over a thousand manuscripts of them on display in various libraries through out the world today. ED O. “Jesus Loves You”

 

[NotWorthy]

What you failed to tell me is since these words are not found in the dictionary how would you expect me to answer you ?

I’m sorry, Ed. but you are looking in the English dictionary and the New Testament wasn’t originally written in English.

Those words are the Koine Greek that was used when the Old Testament was translated and New Testament was written. Sadly, these words lose a lot when they are translated to English.

“Do this in memory of Me” is one of the worst translations of the Bible. “Do This” is poiein in Greek (or poiein is the greek root of the word). “memory of” is anamnesis in Greek.

“meros” means something like “inheritance” in Greek.

All of these words are used in the Last Supper scene. When you look at the Old Testament context of these words, as well as the washing of the feet in the OT, you may have trouble denying that Jesus instituted a priesthood at the Last Supper.

Do you wish to find the context of these words or would you like me to show you?

 

[NotWorthy]

My intentions are not to insult but to question. In the O.T. God made what He wanted done very clear. But the leaders (Pharisees and Sadducees with their High Priests) added so much more (rules) that Jesus said that even they thenseves weren’t able to follow. Now when I read the books of Acts and the Epistles I can’t find much of what goes on in the R.C. Church today. Isn’t this a similar situatuion?

I see binding and loosing going on. The Jerusalem Council is a perfect example of the Church wielding the authority to Bind in response to a situation that wasn’t present a few chapters earlier in Acts.

The needs of the Church change, and the Church has the authority to adjust to those changes. Now, has the world quit changing? Was Stem Cell research an issue in the 1st century?

Here’s why I have a problem with what you state here. Eph 2:19-20 very clearly states that God’s church is built on the foudation of the Apostles and Prophets with Jesus as the head. In Mat 18:18 Jesus gave ALL the apostles the authority to bind and loosen. Since they are all dead now, what more is there to bind and loosen that they haven’t mentioned in God’ Word? Now consider what Jesus has to say per Mark 16:17, He told the Eleven to go into all the world and preach the Good News (gospel). “whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” The whole purpose of the church is to get people saved and to heaven. That being said, why then all the extra rules that are being practiced by the R/C. Church when Jesus mention only BELIEVE the GOSPEL? ED O.

Ed, the early Church, the ones who heard the Gospel first hand, certainly didn’t teach that you only have to “Believe” in the Gospel. What’s happened is that, the word “Believe” has been so watered down that its lost its emphasis.

But to approach another point that you brought up. “Go out to all the world…” Did the Original Eleven go out to all the world? No. They needed successors to do this. Jesus knew that. Evidently, Jesus wanted them to have successors in order to “Go out to all the world”.

Second point on that. Why does Jesus call Judas role as an Apostle “an office” (aka “Episcopate”)? “Offices” are permanent positions that are filled by a succession of people.