• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

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

DaChaser1

New Member
The Catholic Church was the Church instituted by Christ. Again, we need but look at Church history through the early writings of the Church.

Ignatius of Antioch. In his second-century letter to the church in Smyrna, he wrote, "Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8, 1 [A.D. 110]).

So, there is solid historic evidence close to the time of the death of the last apostle. Additionally, we can see solid documentation for apostolic succession…

In his work “Against Heresies [A.D. 180] ”St. Irenaeus begins to list the successors of Peter at Rome with these words: "But since it would be too long, in a work like this, to list the successions in all the churches, we shall take only one of them, the church that is greatest, most ancient, and known to all, founded and set up by the two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul at Rome while showing that the tradition and the faith it proclaims to men comes down through the successions of the bishops even to us" (ibid., 3.2).

Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 3)
1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to the perfect apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.

Here, Ignatius shows the Primacy of the Church of Rome..
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

And here is the apostolic succession listed:
3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.


Approximately 300 years later, we see Augustine confirming the list…

St. Augustine of Hippo – A.D. 412:
“If the very order of epicopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as the one representing the WHOLE CHURCH, the Lord said “Upon this rock I will build my Church… Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus … “ (Letter 53, To Generosus 1:2)

So, your statement: "...The fulness of the faith once and foreverdelivered to the saints", and that WAS before there was ANY RCC even in existence!" isn't supportable by the evidence. In fact there's just to much evidence to the contrary disputting it.

WM

HIS true Church would be that which tauhgt/proclaimed the true gospel, since the RCC does not, that invalidates ANYclaim to being either the Kingdom on earth, or the true church on earth!
 

Eliyahu

Active Member
Site Supporter
HIS true Church would be that which tauhgt/proclaimed the true gospel, since the RCC does not, that invalidates ANYclaim to being either the Kingdom on earth, or the true church on earth!


You are correct!

The Church Fathers statements are not properly verified. We don't know whether they were properly translated or extracted from various contexts which meant differently. We don't need to waste much time to verify them.


We have very clear and truthful teachings from the Bible, which says:

Leviticus 17

10And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people.
11For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

14For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.


The Blood of Jesus Christ was offered to God as the Atonement for All the Sins of the World. His Blood was NOT offered for human beings to drink! It was Offered to God for Redemption and Atonement!


RCC claims that they drink the Blood of Jesus Christ every week, which means They are Cursed and are going to the Hell!!!!

RCC people are honest! because they strongly claim that they are going to the Inferno, Purgatyory where they don't know how many billions of years they have to spend.

Jesus Christ Died ONCE FOR ALL! His Sacrifice was FINISHED!
 
Last edited:

Walter

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You are correct!

The Church Fathers statements are not properly verified. We don't know whether they were properly translated or extracted from various contexts which meant differently. We don't need to waste much time to verify them.


We have very clear and truthful teachings from the Bible, which says:

Leviticus 17

10And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people.
11For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

14For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.


The Blood of Jesus Christ was offered to God as the Atonement for All the Sins of the World. His Blood was NOT offered for human beings to drink! It was Offered to God for Redemption and Atonement!


RCC claims that they drink the Blood of Jesus Christ every week, which means They are Cursed and are going to the Hell!!!!

RCC people are honest! because they strongly claim that they are going to the Inferno, Purgatyory where they don't know how many billions of years they have to spend.

You clearly have no clue what you are talking about. Read the catechism of the Catholic Church before you spew such nonsense.
 

Eliyahu

Active Member
Site Supporter
You clearly have no clue what you are talking about. Read the catechism of the Catholic Church before you spew such nonsense.


You have no idea about what is Christian Truth|!

You better study the Bible Not the Catechism of Catholics!
 

Walter

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You have no idea about what is Christian Truth|!

You better study the Bible Not the Catechism of Catholics!

I am study both. The catechism is full of scriptural references. What is clear that you have not, nor will not look through any other lense than the ones you currently looking through. BTW, all the incredibly large font is a little over-the-top.
 

DaChaser1

New Member
I am study both. The catechism is full of scriptural references. What is clear that you have not, nor will not look through any other lense than the ones you currently looking through. BTW, all the incredibly large font is a little over-the-top.

the catechism might have scripture references, but they are misinterpreted per the lense of RCC theology...

RCC uses their threology to prove the Bible, NOT the Bible reprove their doctrines!

Flesh of jesus was his body upon the Cross, his blood was shed on the Cross, that is what saves us, NOT retaking it every Sunday!
 

Eliyahu

Active Member
Site Supporter
the catechism might have scripture references, but they are misinterpreted per the lense of RCC theology...

RCC uses their threology to prove the Bible, NOT the Bible reprove their doctrines!

Flesh of jesus was his body upon the Cross, his blood was shed on the Cross, that is what saves us, NOT retaking it every Sunday!


Amen!

His Blood and His Body was OFFERED to God, not for human beings to eat.

We eat His Blood and His Body by Faith. This was what John 6 is talking about. John 6 is all about the FAITH.

RCC should stop regarding their dogmas above the Bible itself. They must discern any theology according to the Bible, about whether they are correct or not.
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oh really? Well I could state that it is you who are a Christ rejector and a false professor. Now... does that really mean anything? Nope.

WM

Just playing your normal game of dodging evidence you cannot deal with.

The very application by Christ to these Christ rejectors and false professors demonstrates my point that it was strictly metaphorical of coming to Christ by faith which is something that must be "given unto" you (v. 65).


I said Rome took the side of the interpretations by Christ rejectors and false professors. Taking their interpretative side and being what they are is not what I said.

I provided the evidence to prove they were Christ rejectors and false professors.
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You clearly have no clue what you are talking about. Read the catechism of the Catholic Church before you spew such nonsense.

No, Roman Catholics have no clue what they are talking about and neither do you. The sacrifice was "finished" on the cross. The resurrection ratified that it had been accepted by God.

John 6:29-70 is an exposition by Christ on the meaning of saving faith not the Lord's Supper. Christ makes it very clear that "eating" and "drinking" all the way through this exposition is METAPHORICAL of partaking Christ by faith through simply believing in his Word. This is easy to prove and easy to defend.

Rome accepts the interpretation of the Phariseeical Christ rejectors and those FALSE PROFESSORS in John 6:60-64 rather than the clear and explicit teaching of Christ and understanding by Peter (Jn. 6:35, 47-48; 60-65, 68-69).

The Bible forbids both Jews and Christians to drink blood (Acts 15) and that is precisely what Rome is teaching in the Mass - drinking literal blood.
 

Walter

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
No, Roman Catholics have no clue what they are talking about and neither do you. The sacrifice was "finished" on the cross. The resurrection ratified that it had been accepted by God.

John 6:29-70 is an exposition by Christ on the meaning of saving faith not the Lord's Supper. Christ makes it very clear that "eating" and "drinking" all the way through this exposition is METAPHORICAL of partaking Christ by faith through simply believing in his Word. This is easy to prove and easy to defend.

Rome accepts the interpretation of the Phariseeical Christ rejectors and those FALSE PROFESSORS in John 6:60-64 rather than the clear and explicit teaching of Christ and understanding by Peter (Jn. 6:35, 47-48; 60-65, 68-69).

The Bible forbids both Jews and Christians to drink blood (Acts 15) and that is precisely what Rome is teaching in the Mass - drinking literal blood.

Yeah, I know your Baptist beliefs dictates it MUST be nothing more than a symbol, but in John 6, if Jesus was making it so clear that He was speaking metaphorically, why did He not call the many disciples back after they departed from Him when He clearly told them He was talking literally and say 'don't go, I only meant it metaphorically?

And again, Paul could have made it clear that the eucharist is only a symbol but instead he says:
Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? 1 Cor. 10:16

Now you HAVE to do scriptural gymnastics to make it all mean something that it clearly doesn't mean. What it clearly says, it clearly says, PERIOD!
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Yeah, I know your Baptist beliefs dictates it MUST be nothing more than a symbol, but in John 6, if Jesus was making it so clear that He was speaking metaphorically, why did He not call the many disciples back after they departed from Him when He clearly told them He was talking literally and say 'don't go, I only meant it metaphorically?

He did one better than that. BEFORE they departed he told them explicitly why they were going to leave him and it had to do with the very nature of the lesson he had been teaching them and the "words" he used in teaching that lesson:

60 ¶ Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.


Peter confirmed that "life" was found in believing in his "words" and therefore to believe in him was to believe in his words:

68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.



Before they departed he told them that the reason they were departing had to do with the very metaphorical lesson he had just taught about saving faith:

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.
66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.


John gives the expository remark in verse 64 to inform the reader that Christ knew from the very beginning when these disciples and Judas made their profession it was a FALSE profession lacking true belief and that is precisely why

"THEREFORE said I unto you, NO MAN CAN COME unto me, EXCEPT IT WERE GIVEN UNTO HIM of my Father."

The whole previous lesson from John 6:29-59 had been on the nature of saving faith or coming to Christ in faith. He had first illustrated it by the Old Testament manna identifying himself metaphorically with that manna which if a man does eat shall have eternal life - eating and drinking are metaphors of partaking of Christ by faith (Jn. 6:35). He then proceeded to speak of eating his own flesh and blood METAPHORICALLY as partaking of him BY FAITH or believing in HIS WORDS (Jn. 6:47-48).

Peter understood that the lesson of manna and then his own flesh and blood was METAPHORICAL of believing IN HIM and in HIS WORDS.

Both the Pharisees and FALSE PROFESSING disciples interpreted his "words" literally instead of spiritually just as Rome does.

Both the Pharisees and FALSE PROFESSING disciples illustrated his lesson and why he had taught that NO MAN CAN COME UNTO ME except it were given unto him of my Father.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
He did one better than that. BEFORE they departed he told them explicitly why they were going to leave him and it had to do with the very nature of the lesson he had been teaching them and the "words" he used in teaching that lesson:

60 ¶ Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.


Peter confirmed that "life" was found in believing in his "words" and therefore to believe in him was to believe in his words:

68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.



Before they departed he told them that the reason they were departing had to do with the very metaphorical lesson he had just taught about saving faith:

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.
66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.


John gives the expository remark in verse 64 to inform the reader that Christ knew from the very beginning when these disciples and Judas made their profession it was a FALSE profession lacking true belief and that is precisely why

"THEREFORE said I unto you, NO MAN CAN COME unto me, EXCEPT IT WERE GIVEN UNTO HIM of my Father."

The whole previous lesson from John 6:29-59 had been on the nature of saving faith or coming to Christ in faith. He had first illustrated it by the Old Testament manna identifying himself metaphorically with that manna which if a man does eat shall have eternal life - eating and drinking are metaphors of partaking of Christ by faith (Jn. 6:35). He then proceeded to speak of eating his own flesh and blood METAPHORICALLY as partaking of him BY FAITH or believing in HIS WORDS (Jn. 6:47-48).

Peter understood that the lesson of manna and then his own flesh and blood was METAPHORICAL of believing IN HIM and in HIS WORDS.

Both the Pharisees and FALSE PROFESSING disciples interpreted his "words" literally instead of spiritually just as Rome does.

Both the Pharisees and FALSE PROFESSING disciples illustrated his lesson and why he had taught that NO MAN CAN COME UNTO ME except it were given unto him of my Father.

The whole lesson from John 6:29-6:59 was then applied to the unbeleivers in his midst (Jn. 6:60-65).

Peter understood that his "words" were metaphorical of partaking of Him through faith in Him and his words.

The disciples that departed and Judas are explicitly defined by both John and Christ as FALSE PROFESSORS from the very "beginning" of their profession and following of Christ (Jn. 6:64).

For lost people, coming to Christ in faith is just as repugnant as eating his literal flesh and drinking his literal blood - they will not do it! "Therefore I said unto you, that NO MAN CAN come unto me except it were GIVEN UNTO HIM of my Father."

There is absolutely no excuse to interpret his "words" as literal when he introduces this context with clear and explicit statements which show he is speaking metaphorically:

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


Here at the very beginning he establishes his metaphorical application that coming to him is equal to never HUNGERING and that believing in him is equal to never THIRSTING. He calls on them to EAT him as the BREAD OF LIFE in this sense.

47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
48 I am that bread of life.
49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
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.


Again, he makes it crystal clear that believing on him is the way to obtain eternal life (v. 47) and then directly makes the metaphorical application "I am the bread of life" which he likens first to the "manna" (NOT THE LORD'S SUPPER) that fell in the wilderness. Eating of this METAPHORICAL MANNA means BELIEVING IN HIM.

Peter understood what he was saying exactly in response to those FALSE PROFESSORS or unbelieving disciples when he said,

67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.
.

Peter saw plainly that eternal life was found in his "WORDS" not his literal flesh and blood, and not that He was literal "manna" and that Christ was calling on them to "BELIEVE" in Him or partake of him by faith, thus metaphorically as one would partake of him by eating and drinking of him or eating manna.

Rome follows the interpretation of the Christ rejecting Pharisees and unbelieving disciples rather than understanding and following Peter's interpretation of his "words."
 

DaChaser1

New Member
The whole lesson from John 6:29-6:59 was then applied to the unbeleivers in his midst (Jn. 6:60-65).

Peter understood that his "words" were metaphorical of partaking of Him through faith in Him and his words.

The disciples that departed and Judas are explicitly defined by both John and Christ as FALSE PROFESSORS from the very "beginning" of their profession and following of Christ (Jn. 6:64).

For lost people, coming to Christ in faith is just as repugnant as eating his literal flesh and drinking his literal blood - they will not do it! "Therefore I said unto you, that NO MAN CAN come unto me except it were GIVEN UNTO HIM of my Father."

There is absolutely no excuse to interpret his "words" as literal when he introduces this context with clear and explicit statements which show he is speaking metaphorically:

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


Here at the very beginning he establishes his metaphorical application that coming to him is equal to never HUNGERING and that believing in him is equal to never THIRSTING. He calls on them to EAT him as the BREAD OF LIFE in this sense.

47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
48 I am that bread of life.
49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
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.


Again, he makes it crystal clear that believing on him is the way to obtain eternal life (v. 47) and then directly makes the metaphorical application "I am the bread of life" which he likens first to the "manna" (NOT THE LORD'S SUPPER) that fell in the wilderness. Eating of this METAPHORICAL MANNA means BELIEVING IN HIM.

Peter understood what he was saying exactly in response to those FALSE PROFESSORS or unbelieving disciples when he said,

67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.
.

Peter saw plainly that eternal life was found in his "WORDS" not his literal flesh and blood, and not that He was literal "manna" and that Christ was calling on them to "BELIEVE" in Him or partake of him by faith, thus metaphorically as one would partake of him by eating and drinking of him or eating manna.

Rome follows the interpretation of the Christ rejecting Pharisees and unbelieving disciples rather than understanding and following Peter's interpretation of his "words."

the Jews took it as being a physical meaning, as throughout the Gospel of John MANY times people took the wrong physical meaning, as He spoke tot he spiritual!

Think the RCC person needs to realise that they are part of a Judaizer group, one that paul warned and fought againt in Galatians!
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
the Jews took it as being a physical meaning, as throughout the Gospel of John MANY times people took the wrong physical meaning, as He spoke tot he spiritual!

Think the RCC person needs to realise that they are part of a Judaizer group, one that paul warned and fought againt in Galatians!

Roman Catholicism is a mixture of Old Testament Leviticual Judaism mixed with Babylonian paganism with a touch of New Testament Christian terminology and the second post apostolic great Christian cult after the apostolic Judaizer sect of Christianity.

The Montanists, Donatists and Novations (not those from whom these names came and their doctrines) were the original apostolic New Testament Christianity which opposed these two great isms that infiltrated Christianity.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Gerhard Ebersoehn

Active Member
Site Supporter
'Jesus' 'rest' on the Sabbath in the grave' ...

The word 'rest' should be used with great circumspect, because Jesus' 'abode' one could say in the grave itself and as such, had its own divine, saving and glorious, significance and THEREFORE only, may be seen as a 'rest' of his. Redemption through "our Passover" is complete in its three-ness, the three-ness of the "three days" the Scriptures often make mention of, of the PASSOVER OF YAHWEH. Those "three days" consisted of nothing superfluous or insignificant; every "DAY" of it was ESSENTIAL, i.e., without it, Jesus' redemption wrought, is not the real "reconciliation made" - the atonement or peace of the Promises of God; without the BONE-day, Jesus' work or rest, would be incomplete and ineffective ... useless and false.

And certainly, it is written of Christ in his death and grave, that "He" or "his flesh" - unlike the flesh of sinners - would "NOT SEE CORRUPTION". That makes Jesus' 'abode' in the grave glorious beyond comprehension and ALREADY God's exaltation of Christ, above the corruptibility or even life of sinners.

Because Christ had already TRIUMPHED IN HIS SUFFERING OF DYING THE DEATH OF DEATH OF US FOR US from "the very first day" of the passover "that leaven was removed and they had to KILL the passover" and He in the end of that first day declared "It is FINISHED" ... and mark well ... "GAVE (HIS) SPIRIT INTO THE HANDS OF HIS FATHER"!. Which was where and WHEN, Jesus' DESCENT TO HELL HAD ENDED AND HIS EXALTATION AND GLORIFICATION HAD BEGUN.

Thus one may have the right to describe Jesus’ stay in his actual death of the grave as a ‘rest’ of his. But this rest of Jesus, was not God’s or our rest on and of, the Seventh Day Sabbath BECAUSE Jesus’ stay in his actual death of the grave WAS THE PENALTY FOR AND WAGES OF SIN – OUR SINS; which was God’s ultimate PUNISHMENT of and REVENGE on the spurning of his LOVE. It was a death WITHOUT MERCY OR LOVE, BUT JUDGMENT OF AND JUSTICE FOR UNBELIEF AND DISOBEDIENCE – OURS!

Jesus’ ‘rest in the grave’ was the RESULT of ‘the second death’. For He ACTIVELY had died the ‘second death’ by his suffering and humiliation to its ultimate “THE VERY FIRST DAY” of his last passover, ALIVE, fully conscious and sober; WILLINGLY, “DESIRING”, AND OBEDIENT; THEN, PASSIVELY, entered into oblivion and the domain of “THE DEAD” – the GRAVE – “FROM” which, it is written ever so often, Christ again actively, “ROSE again”. And THIS rising of Christ “from the dead”, was the true, “REST OF GOD” into which both God and Christ, and us “together with Him are co-raised”, and “together with Him” and “in Christ”, “entered into His (God’s) own rest”, Hebrews 4:10. JESUS’ RESURRECTION, constitutes and therefore institutes, “the rest of God”, “the rest of God … God thus concerning did speak, and God the Seventh Day from all his WORKS, RESTED.”

Again, in this text, do we see that Jesus during his death and grave even, engaged in “WORKS” of God EVEN UPON THE SABBATH DAY UNTIL IN RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAD, the WORK of God was, that “He RESTED”.

Yes, God’s WORK by “the EXCEEDING GREATNESS OF HIS POWER” specifically “on the Seventh Day and Sabbath of the LORD your God”, was that “He RESTED”;
and God’s REST specifically “on the Seventh Day and Sabbath of the LORD your God” was, that by “the EXCEEDING GREATNESS OF HIS POWER GOD WORKED WHEN HE RAISED CHRIST FROM THE DEAD”. Ephesians 1:19.

Which Biblical truths make void and irrelevant and illegitimate your argumentation for a mid-night change in days. It would be “on the First Day of the week” if Jesus arose from the dead at “midnight”— not, on the Sabbath Day.

The truth is it reads, “IN the end(ing) _of_: the SABBATH … TOWARDS / BEFORE the First Day”.


Another thing about this remark of yours, is that you make the reaping of the first sheaf during the night, which historically never happened and clashes with the fact all sacrifices and offerings were made during DAYTIME. When the sixteenth day of the First Month happened to fall on a Seventh Day Sabbath, then on that Seventh Day Sabbath the first sheaf had to be reaped; it was the law --- God's law, after all.

The Commandment that says you shall do no work on the Sabbath Day clearly meant works of one's own interest and livelihood; not God's works He prescribed for even the Seventh Day Sabbath. Jesus made that very clear in Luke 6.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Gerhard Ebersoehn

Active Member
Site Supporter
"Jesus Died ONCE AND FOR ALL/Why does RCC resacrifice him each Mass?"

Because they don't attach to the BONE-day or the First Sheaf-day, their true and due significance, but got stuck on the "day they killed the passover" and want to cram into it all the content of the Passover of Yahweh that FOLLOWED on the second and third days "according to the Scriptures".

In fact, I had to once make a study of the Roman Catholic explanation, and one of their spokesmen had to tell it is not Jesus' sacrifice on or of the cross that makes or had made atonement for sins, but his being sacrificed through the mass.

Yes, I have it black on white and officially.

So that is - according to the Catholics themselves -, "Why (they) resacrifice him each Mass".


BLASPHEMY!

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Earth Wind and Fire

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
"Jesus Died ONCE AND FOR ALL/Why does RCC resacrifice him each Mass?"

Because they don't attach to the BONE-day or the First Sheaf-day, their true and due significance, but got stuck on the "day they killed the passover" and want to cram into it all the content of the Passover of Yahweh that FOLLOWED on the second and third days "according to the Scriptures".

In fact, I had to once make a study of the Roman Catholic explanation, and one of their spokesmen had to tell it is not Jesus' sacrifice on or of the cross that makes or had made atonement for sins, but his being sacrificed through the mass.

Yes, I have it black on white and officially.

So that is - according to the Catholics themselves -, "Why (they) re-sacrifice him each Mass".


BLASPHEMY!


Oh yea, I forgot that about them....Just one more thing I will have to add to my list of RC dislikes. Thanks for reminding me. :thumbsup:
 

Alive in Christ

New Member
Dont let anyone trick you.

The Catholic cult of Rome does indeed "re-sacrifice" Christ at every mass.

Here you go...

From the council of Trent...


If any one shall say, that in the Mass there is not offered to God a true and proper sacrifice, or that what is offered is nothing else than Christ given to be eaten, let him be anathema."

(Anathema - The strongest denunciation of a person that can be made in the ancient Greek (the original language of the New Testament). Literal meaning: "devoted to death". A thing or person accursed or damned. -- Webster's New World Dictionary and Harper's Bible Dictionary.)


"If any one shall say that in these words, 'This do in remembrance of Me', Christ did not make the apostles priests, or did not ordain that they themselves and other priests should offer His body and blood, let him be anathema."

"If any one shall say that the sacrifice of the Mass is only of praise and thanksgiving, or a bare commemoration of the sacrifice performed on the cross, but not propitiatory; or that it is of benefit only to the person who takes it, and ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities, let him be accursed."
"If any one shall say that a blasphemy is ascribed to the most holy sacrifice of Christ performed on the cross by the sacrifice of the Mass let him be accursed."

From the 2nd Vatican Council.....

"At the Last Supper. . . our Saviour instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice of His body and blood. He did this in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross. . . " p. 154, The Documents of Vatican II, Walter M. Abbott, S.J.

From the Catholic Catichism....

The catechism books teach that the reason the Mass is the same sacrifice as that of Calvary is because the victim in each case was Jesus Christ. ("The New Baltimore Catechism" #3, Question 931.) In fact, they refer to the bread of the Eucharist as the "host", which is the Latin word hostia which literally means "victim"

The Catholic cult of Rome has has had centuries of exprierence regarding lying, deceit, and deception, in all their various forms.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DaChaser1

New Member
Dont let anyone trick you.

The Catholic cult of Rome does indeed "re-sacrifice" Christ at every mass.

Here you go...

From the council of Trent...




From the 2nd Vatican Council.....



From the Catholic Catichism....



The Catholic cult of Rome has has had centuries of exprierence regarding lying, deceit, and deception, in all their various forms.

what is sad and ironic is that God has pronounced upon their theology same one they want to put on the protestants!
 
Top