Why, if Jesus' sacrifice is a past event, is Jesus still considered a priest?

[joe370]

A question for non-Catholics: Why, if Jesus’ sacrifice is a past event, (in the sense that His flesh and blood are not re-presented under the veil of bread and wine) - is Jesus still considered a priest? Just as the sacrifice of the Priest Jesus, on Calvary, was supposedly a past event, according to protestants, in the sense that I mentioned, so should His priesthood be a past event, and yet Paul tells us that He has a permanent priesthood and John tells us that Jesus, the Lamb of God, still appears as a slain Lamb in Heaven, long after He was sacrificed on Calvary.

 

[jericho777]

A question for non-Catholics: Why, if Jesus’ sacrifice is a past event, (in the sense that His flesh and blood are not re-presented under the veil of bread and wine) - is Jesus still considered a priest? Just as the sacrifice of the Priest Jesus, on Calvary, was supposedly a past event, according to protestants, in the sense that I mentioned, so should His priesthood be a past event, and yet Paul tells us that He has a permanent priesthood and John tells us that Jesus, the Lamb of God, still appears as a slain Lamb in Heaven, long after He was sacrificed on Calvary.

Are you referring to the book of Hebrews? Jesus does not have to reoffer the sacrifice because His is the only perfect sacrifice offered once for all. Heb 7:27 Not like the ones offered by the Aaronic priest hood which had to be reoffered constantly because they weren’t sufficient to meet Gods requirement for perfection. Jesus was is and will always be a High priest. Heb 5:6

Jesus is the lamb slain before the foundation of the world. All the references in the NT (4) are in past the tense not the present. His work is finished that’s why He can sit at the right hand of the Father.

 

[joe370]

Are you referring to the book of Hebrews? Jesus does not have to reoffer the sacrifice because His is the only perfect sacrifice offered once for all. Heb 7:27 Not like the ones offered by the Aaronic priest hood which had to be reoffered constantly because they weren’t sufficient to meet Gods requirement for perfection. Jesus was is and will always be a High priest. Heb 5:6

Jesus is the lamb slain before the foundation of the world. All the references in the NT (4) are in past the tense not the present. His work is finished that’s why He can sit at the right hand of the Father.

I understand your position. Could you please address my questions? Thanks Jericho…He is sitting at the right hand of the Father as a Priest, according to Hebrews. The function of a priest is to offer sacrifices. You just said that the sacrifice of Jesus is a past event, so why is Jesus still considered a priest considering the fact that His sacrifice is a past event? In other words, no need for a priest if there is no sacrifice, yet Jesus has a priesthood that will last forever.

But because Jesus lives forever, his priesthood lasts forever.

 

[jericho777]

I understand your position. Could you please address my questions? Thanks Jericho…He is sitting at the right hand of the Father as a Priest, according to Hebrews. The function of a priest is to offer sacrifices. You just said that the sacrifice of Jesus is a past event, so why is Jesus still considered a priest considering the fact that His sacrifice is a past event? In other words, no need for a priest if there is no sacrifice, yet Jesus has a priesthood that will last forever.

But because Jesus lives forever, his priesthood lasts forever.

The bible says Jesus’ sacrifice is a past event and by virtue of Heb 7:27 there is no need for continual sacrifices “Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.”

His is a new priesthood a perfect priesthood. Heb 7:24-25 but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. 25Therefore he is able to save completely
those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them. His priesthood is the intercession for believers.

Jesus’ appearance in Rev as a slain lamb is in a past tense not present. Rev 5:6, 5:12, 6:9 and 13:8.

 

[joe370]

Hey Jericho…

jericho777;7164809]The bible says Jesus’ sacrifice is a past event and by virtue of Heb 7:27 there is no need for continual sacrifices “Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.”

His is a new priesthood a perfect priesthood. Heb 7:24-25 but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. 25Therefore he is able to save completely
those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them. His priesthood is the intercession for believers.

You do not agree that the primary function of a priest is to offer sacrifices? Jesus’ sacrifice is a past event. Why the need for His permanent priesthood? Thus far you have not answered that question. Jesus did not need to have a permanent priesthood to intercede for believers. He could simply intercede as our King and Savior.

Jesus’ appearance in Rev as a slain lamb is in a past tense not present. Rev 5:6, 5:12, 6:9 and 13:8.

Exactly. It was a past event even to the author of Revelation, yet the author, John, still sees Jesus as a slain lamb long after his death on Calvary. Why not clean up the body and show the Lamb in His obvious glorified state?

 

[brakelite]

The first function of any priest was not just to offer sacrifice, but to stand as an intermediary between God and man. This function included the sacrifice of the animal, but that wasn’t the whole picture. The sanctuary services of the OT was a portrayal of the whole gospel.The death *and *resurrection of Christ. They began with the sacrifice, but the priest then entered the sanctuary to continue ministering there before the veil, and on the Day of Atonement, in the Holy of Holies, before the Ark of the Covenant itself.
These services were all shadows of what was to come. Christ “our Passover” was sacrificed outside the walls of the city, just as the animals were sacrificed in the outer court of the temple. The priest, also a type of Christ, then entered with blood into the Holy Place (the first compartment of the sanctuary) to sprinkle the blood before the altar of incense and the veil. This was a type of the intercession that Christ performed when He first entered Heaven after the resurrection and mediated for us His own blood before the Father in our behalf.
The act of His sacrifice justified us who place our faith in Him. The resurrection and intercessory ministry of Jesus in the heavenly sanctuary brings to us the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit that empowers us to live holy lives.
**1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
**

 

[joe370]

The first function of any priest was not just to offer sacrifice, but to stand as an intermediary between God and man. This function included the sacrifice of the animal, but that wasn’t the whole picture. The sanctuary services of the OT was a portrayal of the whole gospel.The death *and *resurrection of Christ. They began with the sacrifice, but the priest then entered the sanctuary to continue ministering there before the veil, and on the Day of Atonement, in the Holy of Holies, before the Ark of the Covenant itself.
These services were all shadows of what was to come. Christ “our Passover” was sacrificed outside the walls of the city, just as the animals were sacrificed in the outer court of the temple. The priest, also a type of Christ, then entered with blood into the Holy Place (the first compartment of the sanctuary) to sprinkle the blood before the altar of incense and the veil. This was a type of the intercession that Christ performed when He first entered Heaven after the resurrection and mediated for us His own blood before the Father in our behalf.
The act of His sacrifice justified us who place our faith in Him. The resurrection and intercessory ministry of Jesus in the heavenly sanctuary brings to us the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit that empowers us to live holy lives.
**1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
**

Brakelite, I totally agree with everything who have stated. The function of a priest, in the old testament was to offer sacrifices among other things. Jesus has a permanent priesthood consisting of His intercessory ministry that you mentioned. Where is the perpetual priestly sacrifice regarding His permanent priesthood?

 

[brakelite]

Brakelite, I totally agree with everything who have stated. The function of a priest, in the old testament was to offer sacrifices among other things. Jesus has a permanent priesthood consisting of His intercessory ministry that you mentioned. Where is the perpetual priestly sacrifice regarding His permanent priesthood?

There is no perpetual re-presentation of a sacrifice necessary.
**Hebrews 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
**

 

[joe370]

Hey BL…

There is no perpetual re-presentation of a sacrifice necessary.
Hebrews 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

1. By whose authority do you make that claim? Please don’t say the bible for the simple fact you and I were not entrusted with the authority to interpret the bible outside the church established by Jesus Christ, which was entrusted with the authority to teach infallibly (error free) - thanks to the ever presence of the Holy spirit, guiding Jesus’ church into all truth as opposed to partial truths, as per the bible. .
2. Where is the perpetual priestly sacrifice regarding His permanent priesthood?

The CC does not teach that the sacrifice of the Mass is another sacrifice or a re-sacrificing of Jesus. That’s silly. Jesus died only once; Jesus cannot be sacrificed again and again and again… Also silly. Jesus simply gives us His flesh and blood, which was shed only ONCE on Calvary, under the veil of bread and wine, again, as per scripture.

 

[tester]

A question for non-Catholics: Why, if Jesus’ sacrifice is a past event, (in the sense that His flesh and blood are not re-presented under the veil of bread and wine) - is Jesus still considered a priest? Just as the sacrifice of the Priest Jesus, on Calvary, was supposedly a past event, according to protestants, in the sense that I mentioned, so should His priesthood be a past event, and yet Paul tells us that He has a permanent priesthood and John tells us that Jesus, the Lamb of God, still appears as a slain Lamb in Heaven, long after He was sacrificed on Calvary.

not only long after …but long before…

Revelation 13:8 or The Apocalypse Of Saint John 13:8

[8] And all that dwell upon the earth adored him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb, which was slain from the beginning of the world.

 

[jericho777]

Hey BL…

1. By whose authority do you make that claim? Please don’t say the bible for the simple fact you and I were not entrusted with the authority to interpret the bible outside the church established by Jesus Christ, which was entrusted with the authority to teach infallibly (error free) - thanks to the ever presence of the Holy spirit, guiding Jesus’ church into all truth as opposed to partial truths, as per the bible. .
2. Where is the perpetual priestly sacrifice regarding His permanent priesthood?

The CC does not teach that the sacrifice of the Mass is another sacrifice or a re-sacrificing of Jesus. That’s silly. Jesus died only once; Jesus cannot be sacrificed again and again and again… Also silly. Jesus simply gives us His flesh and blood, which was shed only ONCE on Calvary, under the veil of bread and wine, again, as per scripture.

I find your position disturbing to anyone with a rational mind. Scripture is quite clear as to the finality of our Lords sacrifice “once for all”. The JW’s use your same logic to interpret scripture and put forth their false doctrines also. Your logic is, it’s not what it says it’s what we say it says. That’s very dangerous and insulting to simple intelligence.

Jesus’ priesthood is after the order of Melchizedek the perfect heavenly priesthood not the fleshly imperfect Aaronic priesthood. They follow different orders because of who they are. You are trying to put fleshly rules on a Divine being. You just can’t do it.

Is there any scriptural evidence to support your claims?

The last supper was a Passover Seder. In Hebrew it is called a moed a dress rehearsal for a future event. Jesus was revealing that from the institution of the Passover it was always Him present there. Communion is a continuance of the Passover Seder. The only thing that is different is that Jesus is now identified with the matzoth and wine. Jesus said “do this in remembrance of Me” It is a memorial according to the words of Jesus.

 

[joe370]

not only long after …but long before…

Revelation 13:8 or The Apocalypse Of Saint John 13:8

[8] And all that dwell upon the earth adored him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb, which was slain from the beginning of the world.

That’s true tester; boggles the mind…

 

[joe370]

=jericho777;7167484]I find your position disturbing to anyone with a rational mind.

Well, I guess I have an irrational mind then, along with the CC and the EOC which are both guilty of believing in the sacrifice of the Mass, in an unbloody manner, for almost 2000 years. I respect your decision even though I don’t agree with it. Perhaps a little reciprocity?

Scripture is quite clear as to the finality of our Lords sacrifice “once for all”.

As is the CC which believes that Jesus died once and for all.

The JW’s use your same logic to interpret scripture and put forth their false doctrines also. Your logic is, it’s not what it says it’s what we say it says. That’s very dangerous and insulting to simple intelligence.

Ouch…

Jesus’ priesthood is after the order of Melchizedek the perfect heavenly priesthood not the fleshly imperfect Aaronic priesthood.

Yup…

They follow different orders because of who they are. You are trying to put fleshly rules on a Divine being. You just can’t do it.

I don’t even know what that means dude - sorry. Perhaps it’s my irrational mind at work again. LOL…

Is there any scriptural evidence to support your claims?

Absolutely,but it won’t matter if I provide passages because you will simply interpret them differently. You and I were not entrusted with the authority to settle the matter. Who was entrust with the authority to settle our little dispute?

 

[joe370]

There is no perpetual re-presentation of a sacrifice necessary.
Hebrews 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

That’s your opinion and I respect it, but disagree with it. You and I were not entrusted with the authority to settle the matter. Who was entrusted with the authority to settle our little dispute?

Are you cool with the idea that the CC, for almost 2000 years, was guilty of Eucharistic idolatry, if what you believe, is true? If so, then the Holy spirit failed to guide Jesus’ church into all truth **right from the word go. **

 

[jericho777]

Hi joe370

I’m sorry if I was not clear on what I meant by their different “orders”. The rules governing the purpose and operation are not the same. The earthly priesthood is after the order of Aaron while Jesus’ the heavenly is after the order of Melchizedek.

I’m confused you agree there are two priesthoods a heavenly and earthly one. Jesus does not have to reoffer Himself according to scripture. His perfect sacrifice has been made. The bible says He is now interceding for all believers based on that once offered perfect sacrifice. So why are you so insistent to make Jesus follow the earthly priesthoods sacrificial system of reoffering/representing a sacrifice? The bible declares otherwise.

Do you think communion is in the words of Jesus a remembrance?

Lastly the Holy Spirit was given to teach all believers. Not just a select few. The JW’s believe their Watchtower Society is the only one granted by God to correctly interpret scripture. I think we would both disagree on that point but you can understand where I’m coming from.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

No time to get much involved at the moment, but see my post here.

See these also:

THE PRIESTHOOD DEBATE by Jimmy Akin - and on CD’s.

 

[brakelite]

That’s your opinion and I respect it, but disagree with it. You and I were not entrusted with the authority to settle the matter. Who was entrusted with the authority to settle our little dispute?
I understand your position as Catholic, that you firmly believe that the church’s interpretation of scripture is your only authority. I, on the other hand, see that as placing the church’s human wisdom above the word of God.
joe370;7168374:

Are you cool with the idea that the CC, for almost 2000 years, was guilty of Eucharistic idolatry, if what you believe, is true? If so, then the Holy spirit failed to guide Jesus’ church into all truth **right from the word go. **

No, I am not cool with that idea at all. But I am in no position to judge, I am not God, so to lay guilt upon any individual is way beyond my authority. Institutions however are under no such protection, and if I believe an institution is guilty of anything, then I would not hesitate to lay blame if I deem it worthy or advantageous to any debate. I am not in this forum however to do any such thing, so I will not be drawn into a position where we both may end up regretting our words and causing friction and animosity where there need not be any.

I have seen it said often by Catholic apologists that if the RCC is in error, then Jesus failed therefore in His promise to keep the gates of hell at bay. But Jesus did not say that the church would be error free, but that the church would not be prevailed against. His promise is that the church would, in some form or another, survive. And that it did. Although the dragon, in the form of Rome, went to war against the church, (Revelation 12:17), and did certainly prevail over them physically in many instances, (Revelation 13:7) yet the church survived. As evidenced by the simple fact that we are talking over such issues today.
But remember, that the church of Rome was not the only church. Rome did not establish universal authority over other churches. Only in Europe, and then there were some notable exceptions such as the Waldenses who did not submit to papal authority. Elsewhere, the church lived on, in many cases having never heard of Roman jurisdiction and authority, such as in Africa, particularly Ethiopia, and the church of the East such as in India, Persia, and beyond. The Celtic churches in Britain for example existed 400 years before Augustine arrived there and found Christianity already well established by such as Patrick, Aidan, Dinooth, Finan and others. So apostolic truth flourished well in many parts of the world, quite independent of Rome.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

Well, I guess I have an irrational mind then, along with the CC and the EOC which are both guilty of believing in the sacrifice of the Mass, in an unbloody manner, for almost 2000 years.

Just a silly question, will you define the sacrifice of the Mass?

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

I understand your position as Catholic, that you firmly believe that the church’s interpretation of scripture is your only authority. I, on the other hand, see that as placing the church’s human wisdom above the word of God.

No, I am not cool with that idea at all. But I am in no position to judge, I am not God, so to lay guilt upon any individual is way beyond my authority. Institutions however are under no such protection, and if I believe an institution is guilty of anything, then I would not hesitate to lay blame if I deem it worthy or advantageous to any debate. I am not in this forum however to do any such thing, so I will not be drawn into a position where we both may end up regretting our words and causing friction and animosity where there need not be any.

I have seen it said often by Catholic apologists that if the RCC is in error, then Jesus failed therefore in His promise to keep the gates of hell at bay. But Jesus did not say that the church would be error free, but that the church would not be prevailed against. His promise is that the church would, in some form or another, survive. And that it did. Although the dragon, in the form of Rome, went to war against the church, (Revelation 12:17), and did certainly prevail over them physically in many instances, (Revelation 13:7) yet the church survived. As evidenced by the simple fact that we are talking over such issues today.
But remember, that the church of Rome was not the only church. Rome did not establish universal authority over other churches. Only in Europe, and then there were some notable exceptions such as the Waldenses who did not submit to papal authority. Elsewhere, the church lived on, in many cases having never heard of Roman jurisdiction and authority, such as in Africa, particularly Ethiopia, and the church of the East such as in India, Persia, and beyond. The Celtic churches in Britain for example existed 400 years before Augustine arrived there and found Christianity already well established by such as Patrick, Aidan, Dinooth, Finan and others. So apostolic truth flourished well in many parts of the world, quite independent of Rome.

There are so many errors in your post here that I have a hard time desiding where to start and it would completely derail this thread to address them. To start with I would not have used and 12 century group of Heretics “waldenses” as an example of christian thinking to support any claims.

 

[brakelite]

Apart from the obvious, that is that the Waldenses refused to submit to papal authority, what particular theology did they hold to that was so upsetting to Rome that armies were sent out repeatedly to destroy them? They protested against celibacy in the clergy, worship of relics, candles, all-night vigils,and prayers to the dead. For these beliefs Jerome described one leader of the time, Vigilantius …“The wretch’s tongue should be cut out, or he should be put under treatment for insanity,” and his fore-runner, Jovinian, as “the hissing of the old
serpent,” “nauseating trash,” and “the devil’s poisonous concoction.”
Incidentally, the Waldenses existed from as early as the second century in the area around Milan, eventually settling into the mountains to escape persecution, growing in numbers until such time as they themselves became fairly well organised and their descendants are still living today in the same area where they lived, worked, and raised their families for nearly 2000 years.
They began as a protest movement against the inroads of pagan superstition, asceticism and monasticism into the church, and preferred to cling to the scriptures as their foundation for faith and practice. Vigilantius (364ad-408ad) was considered to be their first leader by some historians.

I agree that if it hasn’t already, this thread is heading for a serious derailment, which potentially began with the question of Joe’s *Are you cool with the idea that the CC, for almost 2000 years, was guilty of Eucharistic idolatry, if what you believe, is true? If so, then the Holy spirit failed to guide Jesus’ church into all truth right from the word go. *

This question could not be answered without a challenge to the accepted Catholic view of history. Like I said. The church of Rome was not the only Christian church.