per Hebrews/Jesus Died ONCE AND FOR ALL/Why does RCC resacrifice him each Mass?

[DaChaser1]

anyone includes people of nationalities does it not. It still doesn't follow that if you haven't seen something it isn't true. Have you not read in scripture that circumcision which is a foreshadowing of the NT is a process by which one enters into a covenant relationship with God? It is clear that is true in the OT. Now look a what Paul says in Col. Paul equates the covenant circumcision of admission into the Jewish nation with Baptism or the covenant admission into the Kingdom of God. It is clear by this verse. A baptism btw as Peter says. Note that Peter also said And Peter practiced what he preached Which includes children.



As you can see its based on scripture.


So?

This is where you go astray. You believe that you are God and everything depends on what you believe. When in reality you ignore the scriptures when the OT and the NT shows that we aren't just individuals we are made up of a community. And the community has faith and the responsibility to bring in its young (jewish children were circumzised at 8 days) so that they can raise the youth in the faith. As we can see from the foreshadowing in the OT and how Jesus responds in the NT Note little children believing in Jesus How? because the community passed on their faith from the childs infancy. Most Baptist churches don't baptist 3-6 year old children. But its clear Jesus expects the community to pass on their faith. And so the infant is incapable of doing anything on its own the community must care for it, feed it, give it drink, clothe it, and pass on its faith.


Therefore you are wrong.

Let me be specific. Willful with serious matter is not semantics. Some sin are negligent. Not all sin is purposeful willful with serious matter rebellion against God! Ie Adultry and Fornication, Homosexuality etc.... Yes and we choose to repent. Did you repent or do you still live in sin?
Wrong! By the people of this board you guys believe God created sin so he can glorify himself (which makes God evil) According to people on this board you believe its impossible to sin as a believer. By people on this board Jesus doesn't even have Jewish blood!!!! I'm wondering why anyone on this board still believes in the Trinity which was defined and Catagorized as orthodox by the Catholic Church.
By my own words I have shown scriptural support for Catholic soteriology.
I am not ashamed of my words lets look at them again
.

Ah it seems once again you ignore what James says It is clear this apostle thought you needed the community of believers to confess to not just God. And note there is healing with this type of confession so agains scriptures shows you to be wrong.

2 again you ignore James. I bet you wish you could take that book out of the NT!!!! But what does he say? What are the Presbyters (priest) doing? Acting in the Name of the Lord on behalf of the body of believers. You also ignore Jesus' own words to his Apostles

thats the problem with smorgishboard christianity you take things out of context. Yes there is one mediator. But we also mediate for each other by praying for each other and forgiving each other. You don't stop those practices do you? We are inheritors of the Kingdom and are required to act as such.

[ So you ignore how Jesus taught us to pray Do you expect we are not to forgive because the is one highpriest? Are we not a nation of Priest? How can we forgive sins? Because Jesus told us to.


[
No where in that verse does it say only Jesus will forgive your sins. It says Jesus will help us in our time of need. You inproperly eisegesis that passage.

Then we are in agreement there.
Again you are wrong

I can prove all 7 but you just want one?
and again Jesus is very clear.

does the bible teach us that one is saved by placing faith in the person/work of jesus at the Cross or not?

received that justification by faith alone, not of ANY good works.period?

no water baptism , nor any others works required to grant salvation and eternal life to us?

Do you hold that we can forfeit that eternal life, so is really temporary basised potential eternal life?

 

[DHK]

The part of your post I quoted I found I should respond to because you think you have a point. Jesus instituted the sacraments he doesn't call them sacraments but he commanded that we do them such as baptize etc... He doesn't call them ordenences either.

In the city or town in which you live, do you have "ordinances" by-laws, etc.? An ordinance is simply another word for "law," "command." They are commands that we are to keep.

Now you define "sacrament" and see if it matches any Biblical concept that is in the Bible. "Trinity" is a word not found in the Bible. But the Biblical concept is in the Bible. Where is the concept of "sacrament" found in the Bible?

 

[DHK]

Most of your post is a non sequitur. I've explained the scriptures are clear the verses I used are clear James and Hebrews disagree with your attempt to wipe away those verses such as your attempt to say it only means pastor the word is presbetyr in Greek where we get our term for preist in english as in there are 3 types of elders in NT writings Episcopos (bishop) Presbyter (priest) and deacon (deacon). The term in James is Presbyters and its clear they are accepting confessions of those who want to be healed.

What do the words mean? I have explained this before, but perhaps you weren't paying attention.

1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless,

1 Timothy 3:2 δει ουν τον επισκοπον ανεπιληπτον ειναι
The word for "bishop" is episcopos. It is the same word that we use for pastor today. This passage sets forth the qualifications for a pastor.

1 Timothy 3:8 Likewise must the deacons be grave,

1 Timothy 3:8 διακονους ωσαυτως σεμνους μη διλογους
--The Greek word for deacon, "diaconos" means simply "servant." A deacon is a servant of the church.

Acts 20:17 And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church.

Acts 20:17 απο δε της μιλητου πεμψας εις εφεσον μετεκαλεσατο τους πρεσβυτερους της εκκλησιας
--Does it look like a familiar word? The word is "presbuteros" the elders of the church, another name for "pastor." The church at Ephesus had many elders. Paul called them all together at Miletus. Then he began to address them and encourage them in them in the faith.
In verse 28 he says:

Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

Acts 20:28 προσεχετε ουν εαυτοις και παντι τω ποιμνιω εν ω υμας το πνευμα το αγιον εθετο επισκοπους ποιμαινειν την εκκλησιαν του θεου ην περιεποιησατο δια του ιδιου αιματος
--Note the word is episcopos is used, and is translated literally as "overseer," as it should be. This is the same word that is used in 1Tim.3:2 that is translated as Bishop. It simply means overseer. That is another title for pastor, as we have already seen.
--Note the duty: To feed the church of God--the duty of the pastor.
--Note that he is the overseer of all the flock--the duty of the Shepherd. The word pastor means shepherd. He is the shepherd of the flock which is to feed the lambs, the sheep--the very command the Christ gave to Peter.

Here we have all the words that are used as designations for the same office, the office of the pastor. They are not different as you suppose.

1 Timothy 4:14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.

1 Timothy 4:14 μη αμελει του εν σοι χαρισματος ο εδοθη σοι δια προφητειας μετα επιθεσεως των χειρων του πρεσβυτεριου
--As for the word "presbytery" as you find here, we find from Acts 20:17, that the word means nothing more than "elders." They were the elders of the church, again another name for "pastors." Paul called together the elders (pastors) together from Ephesus, so he could encourage them in the faith, and he calls them bishops, overseers, and refers to their duties as that of shepherds.

Your distinctions are moot.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

James 2:24 -- "You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone." NASB

Not commenting on my personal belief here. Just citing the scripture for those who love to prooftext and demand that that scripture be taken literally and just the way it is stated.

Most anything can be "proven" by some part of scripture; that's why there are denominations.

 

[DaChaser1]

James 2:24 -- "You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone." NASB

Not commenting on my personal belief here. Just citing the scripture for those who love to prooftext and demand that that scripture be taken literally and just the way it is stated.

Most anything can be "proven" by some part of scripture; that's why there are denominations.

faith in jesus refers to our justification before God, as by that we are now saved and justified in a spirtual sense of the term...

Good works justify us before men, they are evidence of us already being justified by God, they would be the "good fruit' that accompanies salvation!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

What do the words mean? I have explained this before, but perhaps you weren't paying attention.

1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless,

1 Timothy 3:2 δει ουν τον επισκοπον ανεπιληπτον ειναι
The word for "bishop" is episcopos. It is the same word that we use for pastor today. This passage sets forth the qualifications for a pastor.

You might used the word for pastor but early on Episcopos is used for Bishop. I suspect that Presbyter is the term used for Pastor though initially the Episcopos is higher than the presbyter. Only in modern times have the terms been used to mean just pastor.

[

B]1 Timothy 3:8 [/B]Likewise must the deacons be grave,

1 Timothy 3:8 διακονους ωσαυτως σεμνους μη διλογους
--The Greek word for deacon, "diaconos" means simply "servant." A deacon is a servant of the church.

Yes and its still considered a status greater in authority than lay.

Acts 20:17 And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church.

Acts 20:17 απο δε της μιλητου πεμψας εις εφεσον μετεκαλεσατο τους πρεσβυτερους της εκκλησιας

--Does it look like a familiar word? The word is "presbuteros" the elders of the church, another name for "pastor."

They didn't use the word pastor but Presbyter or presuteros which comes our word for priest which in modern times has come to mean Ieureus but not initially.

Lets break it down

EPISKOPOS (overseer, guardian, bishop)
Acts 20:28; Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:2; Tit. 1:7; 1 Pet. 2:25.


PRESBUTEROS (elder, old person)
Matt. 15:2; 16:21; 21:23; 26:3, 47, 57; 27:1, 3, 12, 20, 41; 28:12; Mk. 7:3, 5; 8:31; 11:27; 14:43, 53; 15:1; Lk. 1:18; 7:3; 9:22; 15:25; 20:1; 22:52, 66; Jn. 8:9; Acts 2:17; 4:5, 8, 23; 6:12; 11:30; 14:23; 15:2, 4, 6, 22f; 16:4; 20:17; 21:18; 22:5; 23:14; 24:1; 25:15; 1 Tim. 4:14; 5:1f, 17, 19; Tit. 1:5; 2:2f; Phlm. 1:9; Heb. 11:2; Jas. 5:14; 1 Pet. 5:1, 5; 2 Jn. 1:1; 3 Jn. 1:1; Rev. 4:4, 10; 5:5f, 8, 11, 14; 7:11, 13; 11:16; 14:3; 19:4.

It may be noted that in the authentic letters of Paul PRESBUTEROS is used only once and translated usually as old man.
DIAKONOS (servant, helper, monister, deacon)
Matt. 20:26; 22:13; 23:11; Mk. 9:35; 10:43; Jn. 2:5, 9; 12:26; Rom. 13:4; 15:8; 16:1; 1 Co. 3:5; 2 Co. 3:6; 6:4; 11:15, 23; Gal. 2:17; Eph. 3:7; 6:21; Phil. 1:1; Col. 1:7, 23, 25; 4:7; 1 Tim. 3:8, 12; 4: - Noelfitz

Now lets look at the Etymology as the dictionary terms define them.

episcopate - Origin: 1635–45; < LL episcopātus the office of a bishop; Late Latin episcopātus, from episcopus, bishop.
bishop - Middle English, from Old English bisceope, from Vulgar Latin ebiscopus, from Late Latin episcopus, from Late Greek episkopos, from Greek, overseer : epi-, epi- + skopos, watcher; see spek- in Indo-European roots.

deacon - Origin: bef. 900; ME deken, OE diacon < LL diāconus < Gk dikonos servant, minister, deacon, equiv. to diā- dia- + -konos service.

priest - Origin: bef. 900; ME prest(e), priest, OE préost, ult. < LL presbyter; Middle English preost, from Old English prēost, perhaps from Vulgar Latin prester (from Late Latin presbyter; ) or from West Germanic prēvost (from Latin praepositus, superintendent.

Now during the NT writings the Episcopos and the presbeteros were used interchangably but very quickly the church Structure changed. why? Well the Apostles died off. So in the NT the ultimate authority was Apostolic. The Elders then replacing their roles and the elders supporting these others quickly developed these offices into two parts Episkopos and presberetos or Bishop and his officers (priest). And finally the Episkopos became leader of a Metropolitan or larger area when initially they were just the head of a single church. There was natural developement of these roles. But its pointless to point this out to you since you don't believe in history.

 

[The Biblicist]

lets do it. John 6

Jesus responds that their task is to believe in Jesus (which means doing what he says)

Not so fast there friend. I will start where we part on your exposition.

I see this is going to be your strategy to escape the whole context.

"believe in Jesus" in this context cannot possibly be interpreted to be "doing what he says" unless/except you mean believe in who he claims to be. He is calling them to receive him from heaven as the bread life just as Israel received manna from heaven. It means exactly what it says "believe IN Jesus"!

They won't do what He says until first they accept and receive him for who He claims to be "the bread of life."

It is foolish to argue "beleive in him" means to do what he says when they don't even believe who He claims to be or what He has come to do.

John 6:36-45 is about coming to him in faith not about keeping any commandments.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

does the bible teach us that one is saved by placing faith in the person/work of jesus at the Cross or not?

What do you mean by this? Do you mean intellectual assent or a living faith that acts on its beliefs. If you mean the latter then yes.

received that justification by faith alone, not of ANY good works.period?

The bible never teaches faith alone. You'll not find it

no water baptism , nor any others works required to grant salvation and eternal life to us?

Jesus established the criteria not me. He made it a requirement to be baptize as is evidenced in the great commission.

Do you hold that we can forfeit that eternal life, so is really temporary basised potential eternal life?

God doesn't force himself upon us. If you choose to forfeit so great a gift then you don't get eternal life. Jesus requires us to remain in him as the scriptures tell us.

 

[The Biblicist]

Not so fast there friend. I will start where we part on your exposition.

I see this is going to be your strategy to escape the whole context.

"believe in Jesus" in this context cannot possibly be interpreted to be "doing what he says" unless/except you mean believe in who he claims to be. He is calling them to receive him from heaven as the bread life just as Israel received manna from heaven. It means exactly what it says "believe IN Jesus"!

They won't do what He says until first they accept and receive him for who He claims to be "the bread of life."

It is foolish to argue "beleive in him" means to do what he says when they don't even believe who He claims to be or what He has come to do.

John 6:36-45 is about coming to him in faith not about keeping any commandments.

I get it. There is absolutely no hope of any kind of objective discussion between us on this subject. In my opinion you formerly had only a head belief in Christ and now you have gone to the other false extreme in defining faith in Christ as merely doing good works. End of story and end of any kind of rational discussion. So long!

 

[DHK]

Now during the NT writings the Episcopos and the presbeteros were used interchangably but very quickly the church Structure changed. why? Well the Apostles died off. So in the NT the ultimate authority was Apostolic. The Elders then replacing their roles and the elders supporting these others quickly developed these offices into two parts Episkopos and presberetos or Bishop and his officers (priest). And finally the Episkopos became leader of a Metropolitan or larger area when initially they were just the head of a single church. There was natural developement of these roles. But its pointless to point this out to you since you don't believe in history.

I showed you the Biblical usage of these words, what they meant in the NT Greek, how they were used, and how they were applied to the same usage.

Now you demonstrate how in time their usage changed, their meaning changed. True enough. Why? Because the Church, particularly the RCC became corrupt. They neglected the Bible and introduced paganism into the church. All you have demonstrated is how paganism entered into the church and how the Bible was ignored. Good for you! You demonstrate how the RCC ignores the teaching of the Bible.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Not so fast there friend. I will start where we part on your exposition.

I see this is going to be your strategy to escape the whole context.

Not at all. I've stayed within the whole context of Chapter 6

"

believe in Jesus" in this context cannot possibly be interpreted to be "doing what he says" unless/except you mean believe in who he claims to be.

Wait am minute right there what do the scriptures say about believing in Jesus.

If you love me, keep my commands

Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching

Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say?

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

So its quite clear what believing in Jesus actually means. Its more than intellectual assent.

He is calling them to receive him from heaven as the bread life just as Israel received manna from heaven. It means exactly what it says "believe IN Jesus"!

Yes it does as I pointed out believing in Jesus is more than believing he is God but doing what he says.

They won't do what He says until first they accept and receive him for who He claims to be "the bread of life."

Jesus didn't use quotation marks on the bread of life. But apart from that I agree.

It is foolish to argue "beleive in him" means to do what he says when they don't even believe who He claims to be or what He has come to do

it's fgolish to believe in God and not do what he says. How is that any different from the demons?

You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

John 6:36-45 is about coming to him in faith not about keeping any commandments

coming to Jesus in faith is taking on all he is about.

 

[Walter]

I was talking about DHK.

I'm not claiming to be an expert, either.

I beg your pardon. I also thought you were referring to 'Thinkingstuff'. My apology!

 

[The Biblicist]

Not at all. I'

This is about "coming" to Christ in faith not about serving Christ by faith. The former is the cause the latter the consequence and Jesus is dealing here in this context with people who WILL NOT serve Him because they do not yet believe IN him. They do not RECEIVE who He claims to be or what He claims to be able to give them.

This context is not about SERVING Christ but about what must precede any service to Christ and that is RECEIVING Him in your mind and heart for who He says he is. The context proves this without doubt:

36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.

64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

This is not a context about SERVING Christ but RECEIVING Christ by coming to him in faith.

However, you cannot admit to this because it is your archiles heel.

 

[DaChaser1]

This is about "coming" to Christ in faith not about serving Christ by faith. The former is the cause the latter the consequence and Jesus is dealing here in this context with people who WILL NOT serve Him because they do not yet believe IN him. They do not RECEIVE who He claims to be or what He claims to be able to give them.

This context is not about SERVING Christ but about what must precede any service to Christ and that is RECEIVING Him in your mind and heart for who He says he is. The context proves this without doubt:

36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.

64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

This is not a context about SERVING Christ but RECEIVING Christ by coming to him in faith.

However, you cannot admit to this because it is your archiles heel.

again, one MSUT be justified by God before any "good fruit" as in good works will be evidenced, so one receives the Lord jesus, gets reborn, and what follows/accompanies that intial act WILL be evidenced of changed life in works!

Not the cause, but result of new life in Christ!

 

[Grace&Truth]

lets do it. John 6

Note what I said about the outline its starts with food then faith then Eucharist which incorporates both.

John 6 starts with food than faith (Period)...to go from there to claim it is teaching the Eucharist is just completely reading into this passage what is not there.

If we take these verses literally as you suggest then we would have to conclude that Jesus turned into literal bread (and yet remained under the appearance of Himself) not that the bread turned into Jesus (while remaining to look like bread)...notice Jesus did not have any bread present at that time (this was the next day). This is no more than Jesus saying that He is The Bread of life (Himself) who came down from the Father and would give His life (on the cross) for us and that we are to believe by faith (Period).If we take these verses literally than those where there would have to literally eat His flesh. No where do these verses teach that the Bread turns literally into Jesus.

Joh 6:48 I am that bread of life.
Joh 6:49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
Joh 6:50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
Joh 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

Joh 6:52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

Joh 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
Joh 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
Joh 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
Joh 6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
Joh 6:57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
Joh 6:58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

If we take these verses literally as you suggest then we would have to conclude that Jesus turned into literal bread (and yet remained under the appearance of Himself)

You're problem is that you see things in a either/or mode where as Jesus here is speaking both/and. While your primary argument is that this verse does not say the bread turns into Jesus we can both agree that Jesus identifies himself with the bread of life. He is that which came down from heaven. That he is our spiritual food. You have the problem of seeing that yes he is the spiritual food given to us as bread. However, the point of this passage is telling people that they need to eat him literally which is why they walked away and that eating him is their spiritual food that will give them eternal life. This establishes the theology of the Eucharist where Jesus actually shows that the bread is him is during his passover supper with the disciples or the last supper where he clearly conlcudes the teaching of John 6 into how he will do it

26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”

27 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

So your contention

not that the bread turned into Jesus (while remaining to look like bread)..

is answered by Jesus
Joh 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
Joh 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
Joh 6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
Joh 6:57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
Joh 6:58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

 

[Grace&Truth]

You're problem is that you see things in a either/or mode where as Jesus here is speaking both/and. While your primary argument is that this verse does not say the bread turns into Jesus we can both agree that Jesus identifies himself with the bread of life. He is that which came down from heaven. That he is our spiritual food. You have the problem of seeing that yes he is the spiritual food given to us as bread. However, the point of this passage is telling people that they need to eat him literally which is why they walked away and that eating him is their spiritual food that will give them eternal life. This establishes the theology of the Eucharist where Jesus actually shows that the bread is him is during his passover supper with the disciples or the last supper where he clearly conlcudes the teaching of John 6 into how he will do it

It is true that they were taking Him literally, but that is not what Jesus was saying. He figuativly is saying that He is the Bread of life, and NO this does not establish the Eucharist again there was no bread present, Jesus did not turn into Bread and the Bread (of Communion) does not turn into Jesus.

So your contention is answered by Jesus
Joh 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
Joh 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
Joh 6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
Joh 6:57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
Joh 6:58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

To make this leap we would have to be consistant, the sacrificial lambs of the OT would have to literally turn into Jesus. Do you believe that? The OT lambs were a type of Jesus not the real deal. These sacrifices could never take away sin they only pictured the True Sacrifice, Jesus. That is why they had to do them over and over and over again. Jesus was also said to be The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world and yet He never became a real Lamb (Just as He never became real bread) and the lamb never became the real Jesus (Just like the bread never becomes the real Jesus). Jesus only had to make one sacrifice because He was the True Sacrifice. To continue to re-sacrifice or re-present would be to say Jesus one sacrifice was not sufficient...it was therefore to make this leap is reading into scripture that which it does not teach.

Heb 7:22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
Heb 7:23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:
Heb 7:24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.
Heb 7:25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
Heb 7:26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;
Heb 7:27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

Heb 9:24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
Heb 9:25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
Heb 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Heb 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
Heb 10:2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
Heb 10:3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
Heb 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
Heb 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
Heb 10:6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
Heb 10:7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
Heb 10:8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
Heb 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
Heb 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Heb 10:11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
Heb 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

Please read these verses in context, there is no longer a earthly tabernacle. Jesus is no longer being offered or re-presented He did that ONCE.

 

[DHK]

John 4:10 Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.

John 4:11 The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water?

John 4:13 Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again:

John 4:14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

John 4:15 The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw.

John 4:16 Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither.

John 4:19 The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.

John 4:22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.

John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

John 4:25-26 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.

John 4:28-29 The woman then left her waterpot, and went her way into the city, and saith to the men, Come, see a man, which told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ?

The Samaritan woman had little knowledge of the OT, especially in light of the Pharisees and the Rabbis. Water is the most common beverage in the world. Unlike blood one would delight in a glass of water, especially if thirsty. But this water would make her live forever. Unlike blood she was willing to drink it, and gladly so. Unlike blood it was not repulsive.

Remember she did not know the OT well like the Pharisees did. She may have even been a bit superstitious. Jesus leads her to the place of belief. She realizes that He is the Messiah. Then she realizes she doesn't need the "water" at all. For Christ is "the living water." All that she needed to do was to believe on Him. Thus she ran to the city and told the entire city of Christ, the One who told her of all that ever she did. "Is this not the Christ? she testified.

This is no different than Jesus offering his blood and body a few chapters later. Why would the RCC believe one is symbolic and the other literal is beyond me. They are inconsistent in their hermeneutics, their interpretation.

 

[DaChaser1]

John 4:10 Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.

John 4:11 The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water?

John 4:13 Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again:

John 4:14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

John 4:15 The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw.

John 4:16 Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither.

John 4:19 The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.

John 4:22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.

John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

John 4:25-26 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.

John 4:28-29 The woman then left her waterpot, and went her way into the city, and saith to the men, Come, see a man, which told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ?

The Samaritan woman had little knowledge of the OT, especially in light of the Pharisees and the Rabbis. Water is the most common beverage in the world. Unlike blood one would delight in a glass of water, especially if thirsty. But this water would make her live forever. Unlike blood she was willing to drink it, and gladly so. Unlike blood it was not repulsive.

Remember she did not know the OT well like the Pharisees did. She may have even been a bit superstitious. Jesus leads her to the place of belief. She realizes that He is the Messiah. Then she realizes she doesn't need the "water" at all. For Christ is "the living water." All that she needed to do was to believe on Him. Thus she ran to the city and told the entire city of Christ, the One who told her of all that ever she did. "Is this not the Christ? she testified.

This is no different than Jesus offering his blood and body a few chapters later. Why would the RCC believe one is symbolic and the other literal is beyond me. They are inconsistent in their hermeneutics, their interpretation.

Communion does NOT grant us eternal life, for it points us towards the real sacrifice that DID grant us who believe in Him eternal life...

Jesus upon the Cross!

 

[DHK]

Communion does NOT grant us eternal life, for it points us towards the real sacrifice that DID grant us who believe in Him eternal life...

Jesus upon the Cross!

Who said anything about Communion?

John 6:27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.

John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

John 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.