I respectfully ask evangelical, protestant and sola scriptura proponents...

[Telestia]

Thank you, Telestia!

And who teaches us these things, if not “some man” - such as the Pope, or one of his Bishops, or a priest?

I know for a fact that you didn’t come up with these all by yourself, since I have read them before.

You are correct. I could not see them, even though they were in plain site in the NT. What blinded me from seeing them was the Mosaic Laws. For God can not have us under two different sets of Laws at the same time. One day I heard a preacher on Christian Radio, and he made me aware of these laws as being the Laws of Jesus Christ. Then everything fell into place immediately. Paul calling the Mosaic Laws useless in that they can not save anyone, but condemned everyone. In Hebrews, Jesus is of the order of of the everlasting Priesthood of Melchizedek. and not of Priesthood of Levi, and where there is a change of Priesthood, there is a change of Law. Also Zechariah 11: 7-14.

And, Heb 7:11-22

11 Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the Law), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of Aaron? 12 For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also. 13 For the one concerning whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no one has officiated at the altar. 14 For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, a tribe with reference to which Moses spoke nothing concerning priests. 15 And this is clearer still, if another priest arises according to the likeness of Melchizedek, 16 who has become such not on the basis of a law of physical requirement, but according to the power of an indestructible life. 17 For it is attested of Him,

“YOU ARE A PRIEST FOREVER
ACCORDING TO THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK.”

18 For, on the one hand, there is a setting aside of a former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness 19(for the Law made nothing perfect), and on the other hand there is a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God. 20 And inasmuch as it was not without an oath 21(for they indeed became priests without an oath, but He with an oath through the One who said to Him,

“THE LORD HAS SWORN
AND WILL NOT CHANGE HIS MIND,
‘YOU ARE A PRIEST FOREVER’”);

22 so much the more also Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant. NASU

NASU

 

[Telestia]

Hey Telestia, welcome to the forum my friend; glad you are here! I certainly respect your right to believe all that you have just said! Perhaps you could start a thread and address those theological points?

What is your response to post # 1?

Hello Joe. Glad to meet you. I Thank You for your kind comments.

Per your request above, I will look at it again. I believe I read nearly all posts on this thread. But I am not the Bible answer man. If I have something I believe to be constructive to say regarding that post, I may share it. It is late for me now.

Telestia.

Postscript: I see that is your post. I will read again on another time, maybe I will think of something.

 

[CopticChristian]

You are correct. I could not see them, even though they were in plain site in the NT. What blinded me from seeing them was the Mosaic Laws. For God can not have us under two different sets of Laws at the same time. One day I heard a preacher on Christian Radio, and he made me aware of these laws as being the Laws of Jesus Christ. Then everything fell into place immediately. Paul calling the Mosaic Laws useless in that they can not save anyone, but condemned everyone. In Hebrews, Jesus is of the order of of the everlasting Priesthood of Melchizedek. and not of Priesthood of Levi, and where there is a change of Priesthood, there is a change of Law. Also Zechariah 11: 7-14.

And, Heb 7:11-22

11 Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the Law), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of Aaron? 12 For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also. 13 For the one concerning whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no one has officiated at the altar. 14 For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, a tribe with reference to which Moses spoke nothing concerning priests. 15 And this is clearer still, if another priest arises according to the likeness of Melchizedek, 16 who has become such not on the basis of a law of physical requirement, but according to the power of an indestructible life. 17 For it is attested of Him,

“YOU ARE A PRIEST FOREVER
ACCORDING TO THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK.”

18 For, on the one hand, there is a setting aside of a former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness 19(for the Law made nothing perfect), and on the other hand there is a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God. 20 And inasmuch as it was not without an oath 21(for they indeed became priests without an oath, but He with an oath through the One who said to Him,

“THE LORD HAS SWORN
AND WILL NOT CHANGE HIS MIND,
‘YOU ARE A PRIEST FOREVER’”);

22 so much the more also Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant. NASU

NASU

Paul says as much in Romans 7, the Old Covenant is dead and the New Covenant is available. To make the point Paul relates the Old Covenant to a dead spouse.

 

[jericho777]

You have generalized and started a sentence with a supposition. Who do you mean by all? Because of what?

When someone disagrees with you they have a problem reading and understanding. Now isn’t that bold. You have gained your information from where? You accuse?

If you take your que from the Bereans then you too would believe in the Oral Teachings of Paul and understand that as the Bereans deduced that Paul was Orally teaching things that were true but could not be discerned from reading alone or there would be no need for Paul to preach and teach. Paul too was noble and knew the OT like the back of his hand however until he saw the OT in light of what Jesus revealed to him he was as blind as you are in reading and believing that you are noble.

Open your ears and listen, read what we are telling you…how beautiful are the feet of the messenger that brings good news, the Church is the Body of Christ, the feet bring you the message, are you noble in checking to see if what we say is true or do you just read to confirm your delusion and then object?

The you all are those who hold the position that they are incapable of reading and comprehending scripture. You live in a world in which you must read and comprehend for yourself all the time and you do. Is scripture that esoteric in nature that it is unknowable to regular folks?

The thing that doesn’t make intellectual sense to me is the CC only limitedly interprets some verses of scripture but allows the people to come to their own conclusion on the others. Why not interpret them all? How can people only be trusted to interpret only some scriptures but not others?

You’re missing the greater point that Paul’s words were tested against the scriptures. Of course some of his teachings were oral because they had not been written down yet. I do test the cc’s teachings and mine against scripture. Delusional? No. Rational. Yes.

 

[jericho777]

No doubt about that! I had to start somewhere…However, I knew that that way of thinking could only lead to a doctrinal cul-de-sac because in the end, it was my personal understanding/interpretation of scripture that I had to trust, as being definitively reliable and accurate, and I just didn’t feel that I was qualified or entrusted by Jesus to make such a judgment call regarding doctrines such as the Eucharist, which was why I mentioned to you that it was about that time that I had decided to search for the historical church founded by Jesus. If anyone, I thought, could be trusted to accurately discern the truths taught by Jesus, it would have to be His church forever guided by Him into all truth.
.

Isn’t that an oxymoron using a heretical doctrine to find the truth? So you tested all the CC’s teachings for yourself against scriptures? Or do you just accept what they say because you believe whatever they say is right?

 

[jmcrae]

You are correct. I could not see them, even though they were in plain site in the NT. What blinded me from seeing them was the Mosaic Laws. For God can not have us under two different sets of Laws at the same time. One day I heard a preacher on Christian Radio, and he made me aware of these laws as being the Laws of Jesus Christ. Then everything fell into place immediately. Paul calling the Mosaic Laws useless in that they can not save anyone, but condemned everyone. In Hebrews, Jesus is of the order of of the everlasting Priesthood of Melchizedek. and not of Priesthood of Levi, and where there is a change of Priesthood, there is a change of Law. Also Zechariah 11: 7-14.

And which priests do we see in the Christian Covenant, making the sacrifice of bread and wine as Melchizedek did? It is the Catholic priests - none other.

And, Heb 7:11-22

11 Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the Law), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of Aaron? 12 For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also. 13 For the one concerning whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no one has officiated at the altar. 14 For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, a tribe with reference to which Moses spoke nothing concerning priests. 15 And this is clearer still, if another priest arises according to the likeness of Melchizedek, 16 who has become such not on the basis of a law of physical requirement, but according to the power of an indestructible life. 17 For it is attested of Him,

“YOU ARE A PRIEST FOREVER
ACCORDING TO THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK.”

18 For, on the one hand, there is a setting aside of a former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness 19(for the Law made nothing perfect), and on the other hand there is a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God. 20 And inasmuch as it was not without an oath 21(for they indeed became priests without an oath, but He with an oath through the One who said to Him,

“THE LORD HAS SWORN
AND WILL NOT CHANGE HIS MIND,
‘YOU ARE A PRIEST FOREVER’”);

22 so much the more also Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant. NASU

NASU

Amen!

 

[JonNC]

=jericho777;8448286]The you all are those who hold the position that they are incapable of reading and comprehending scripture. You live in a world in which you must read and comprehend for yourself all the time and you do. Is scripture that esoteric in nature that it is unknowable to regular folks?

just as a point for the discussion. You here also describe, essentially, the position of the Lutheran refromers, most notably the quote below by Martin Chemnitz, in his Examination of the Council of Trent

This is also certain, that no one should rely on his own wisdom in the interpretation of the Scripture, not even in the clear passages… We also gratefully and reverently use the labors of the fathers who by their commentaries have profitably clarified many passages of the Scripture. And we confess that we are greatly confirmed by the testimonies of the ancient church in the true and sound understanding of the Scripture. Nor do we approve of it if someone invents for himself a meaning which conflicts with all antiquity, and for which there are clearly no testimonies of the church.

The second part is of importance because it points out that do not need to be by necessity an island in our own interpretations, that we can and should rely on the ancient Church. For example, the 7 great councils of the early Church.

The thing that doesn’t make intellectual sense to me is the CC only limitedly interprets some verses of scripture but allows the people to come to their own conclusion on the others. Why not interpret them all? How can people only be trusted to interpret only some scriptures but not others?

For me, it isn’t a matter of trust or not. But if it is, I certainly trust those with greater knowledge and deeper reading than myself. I trust the early Church, and the Lutheran confessions, to guide me in a proper understanding. On things not doctrine, adiaphora, there’s no reason not to allow individuals to make up their own mind. And a great example of this, for Lutherans, are things like the IC.

Jon

 

[joe370]

Isn’t that an oxymoron using a heretical doctrine to find the truth? So you tested all the CC’s teachings for yourself against scriptures? Or do you just accept what they say because you believe whatever they say is right?

Yes, an oxymoron and like I said, a doctrinal cul de sac, until I found the church established by God, and finally put all my faith and trust in His church testing all of my interpretations against His church.

I don’t know how to make it any simpler my friend.To continue to test all the CC’s teachings, or any other church for that matter, against scripture, would make me a sola scriptura advocate, like you, making my interpretation the be all end all, of all interpretations, just as you do…

 

[jericho777]

just as a point for the discussion. You here also describe, essentially, the position of the Lutheran refromers, most notably the quote below by Martin Chemnitz, in his Examination of the Council of Trent

The second part is of importance because it points out that do not need to be by necessity an island in our own interpretations, that we can and should rely on the ancient Church. For example, the 7 great councils of the early Church.

For me, it isn’t a matter of trust or not. But if it is, I certainly trust those with greater knowledge and deeper reading than myself. I trust the early Church, and the Lutheran confessions, to guide me in a proper understanding. On things not doctrine, adiaphora, there’s no reason not to allow individuals to make up their own mind. And a great example of this, for Lutherans, are things like the IC.

Jon

Jon definitely not thinking anyone should rely on their own wisdom. I do think that scriptural doctrines are knowable to the average person though. The Holy Spirit is available to all to know the truth. Obviously Luther had a different interpretation of scripture than the cc. wasn’t he alone at first in his interpretation of scripture? I think hermeneutics can be correctly be practiced by all.

I am no scholar but am amazed the more I read scripture the more I see the doctrines appear there.

Not sure how I feel about the councils because the council of Trent called you and me anathema.

I don’t follow any human blindly and in the words of Ronald Reagan “Trust but verify.” No one should be above this.

 

[joe370]

jericho777;8448633]Jon definitely not thinking anyone should rely on their own wisdom. I do think that scriptural doctrines are knowable to the average person though. The Holy Spirit is available to all to know the truth. Obviously Luther had a different interpretation of scripture than the cc. wasn’t he alone at first in his interpretation of scripture? I think hermeneutics can be correctly be practiced by all.

You say the Holy Spirit is available to all, to know the truth. If the Holy Spirit is available to all, to know the truth, then “all” must include Martin Luther and the council of Trent, or does “all” exclude them?

Not sure how I feel about the councils because the council of Trent called you and me anathema.

Jon didn’t mention the council of Trent.

I don’t follow any human blindly and in the words of Ronald Reagan “Trust but verify.” No one should be above this.

When you verify are you not trusting in your human judgment?

Many of my non-catholic friends tell me that they do not trust in mere fallible humans like the human leaders of the CC regarding truth; only infallible scripture, all the while trusting only in their human, fallible discernment of scripture. That is tantamount to every sola scriptura advocate trusting their human judgment/understanding of scripture. If you think that that was what Jesus had in mind, and that that is working, that’s cool.

 

[josephback]

My point is that the Protestant sees his many denominations not as competing mutually exclusive sects, but as various local expressions of the Church.

And yet these various local expressions have severe theological disagreements amongst themselves. To claim they are all part of the larger church leads of necessity to doctrinal relativism:sad_yes: That’s a road to avoid at all costs.

 

[Telestia]

And which priests do we see in the Christian Covenant, making the sacrifice of bread and wine as Melchizedek did? It is the Catholic priests - none other.

Okay. My priest is Jesus Christ.

 

[joe370]

Okay. My priest is Jesus Christ.

The CC agrees with you. As per the CCC Jesus is the one and only priest regarding the Eucharist, aka Thanksgiving. All ministers in the catholic and eastern orthodox church derive their priestly duty directly from the one High Priest Jesus.

You too are a priest my friend, as am I, according to John and Peter, that being the priesthood of all the baptized.

 

[jericho777]

You say the Holy Spirit is available to all, to know the truth. If the Holy Spirit is available to all, to know the truth, then “all” must include Martin Luther and the council of Trent, or does “all” exclude them?

It is the Holy Spirit who reveals whom Christ is. Depends how well we are listening to His voice determines how much we get right.

Jon didn’t mention the council of Trent.

I misread his post.

When you verify are you not trusting in your human judgment?

Many of my non-catholic friends tell me that they do not trust in mere fallible humans like the human leaders of the CC regarding truth; only infallible scripture, all the while trusting only in their human, fallible discernment of scripture. That is tantamount to every sola scriptura advocate trusting their human judgment/understanding of scripture. If you think that that was what Jesus had in mind, and that that is working, that’s cool.

No one should fear having their beliefs scrutinized in the light of scripture. Just as Paul had done by the Bereans. Men are fallible, scripture is inerrant. I had and have no agenda when I read scripture merely ascertain what it really means. I then build off the revealed truths. Obviously we share some common beliefs but on others we differ. If at any time I see my beliefs are not lining up with the word I will change as I have in the past. Hermeneutics is a neutral way to find the meaning of scripture and minimizes human (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[joe370]

jericho777;8449242]It is the Holy Spirit who reveals whom Christ is. Depends how well we are listening to His voice determines how much we get right.

Agreed. Prayer is certainly helpful. At least it was for me.

No one should fear having their beliefs scrutinized in the light of scripture.

No one should fear having their beliefs scrutinized period!

Just as Paul had done by the Bereans. Men are fallible, scripture is inerrant.

Inerrant scripture with nothing but errant interpreters guided by the holy spirit, enabling each errant interpreter to accurately discern the truth regarding scripture? This would work great if every one came away from scripture with the same truths.

I had and have no agenda when I read scripture merely ascertain what it really means. I then build off the revealed truths. Obviously we share some common beliefs but on others we differ. If at any time I see my beliefs are not lining up with the word I will change as I have in the past. Hermeneutics is a neutral way to find the meaning of scripture and minimizes human (name removed by moderator)ut.

Under that model truth is unknowable. Hypothetically, all I have to say is, my beliefs line up with the word and your beliefs do not. We both went to scripture and scripture failed to resolve our differences. Now how do we resolve our differences without one of us compromising? I have asked that question hundreds of times and no one ever answers it…Taking it to scripture resolved nothing…

 

[jericho777]

Under that model truth is unknowable. Hypothetically, all I have to say is, my beliefs line up with the word and your beliefs do not. We both went to scripture and scripture failed to resolve our differences. Now how do we resolve our differences without one of us compromising? I have asked that question hundreds of times and no one ever answers it…Taking it to scripture resolved nothing…

You misunderstand I don’t start out trying to prove a particular point but look for what is already there.

Scripture is a better arbitrator than you may think. You trust who you will and I’ll trust who I will.

 

[Telestia]

The CC agrees with you. As per the CCC Jesus is the one and only priest regarding the Eucharist, aka Thanksgiving. All ministers in the catholic and eastern orthodox church derive their priestly duty directly from the one High Priest Jesus.

You too are a priest my friend, as am I, according to John and Peter, that being the priesthood of all the baptized.

Thanks Joe. I appreciate that you pointed this out.

Someone sent me a book which I have not yet read. Its’ title is ‘The Call of Our Priesthood’. But I have not read it yet. I hesitate and stall because I do not really want to be a priest. In all truth, I really wanted to have sex. I’m not being facetious nor funny. I feel like Charlie Brown (sigh). But my time is running out, so I will look into it.

 

[joe370]

jericho777;8449436]You misunderstand I don’t start out trying to prove a particular point but look for what is already there.

Scripture is a better arbitrator than you may think. You trust who you will and I’ll trust who I will.

When 2 Christians go to scripture (the perfect arbiter) - and scripture fails to resolve their differences, when they occur, how do those 2 people resolve their differences without one of the 2 compromising…?

 

[CopticChristian]

You misunderstand I don’t start out trying to prove a particular point but look for what is already there.

Scripture is a better arbitrator than you may think. You trust who you will and I’ll trust who I will.

Paul one day, knowing the Old Testament better than you and I, was killing Christians and persecuting The Church. With revelation the next day he was explaining that what he understood and read was not to be understood as he was taught. So he spent time preaching, writing, and explaining that you may know what you read, believe you understand what you read, yet there is more. Paul never told anyone to just read and discern. If your paradigm was valid then there would have been no need for Paul to instruct. There has to be someone to instruct everyone. Recall the Eunuch?

 

[jericho777]

Paul one day, knowing the Old Testament better than you and I, was killing Christians and persecuting The Church. With revelation the next day he was explaining that what he understood and read was not to be understood as he was taught. So he spent time preaching, writing, and explaining that you may know what you read, believe you understand what you read, yet there is more. Paul never told anyone to just read and discern. If your paradigm was valid then there would have been no need for Paul to instruct. There has to be someone to instruct everyone. Recall the Eunuch?

The word was just as true before Paul’s conversion as afterward so you need to ask yourself where discernment comes from in the first place. It is only from the Holy Spirit. Reading or hearing the word itself doesn’t bring understanding. It doesn’t matter how smart or uneducated a person is only the Holy Spirit can give that understanding.

No Paul never told anyone to just read and discern but he did imply reading the word and testing doctrines against the word as the Bereans did. Teachers are ordained by God but understanding comes by the Spirit.