Catholic miracles defy any explanations

packermann

Junior Member
Nov 30, 2003
1,437
372
70
Northwest Suburbs of Chicago, IL
✟37,882.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Republican
True. But Paul is looking for an example where Abraham paid tithes to the person in Heb 7 so that he can continue to make the case from Hebrews 3 that Christ is greater than Moses and than Abraham.


So while you are correct that some other examples exist where there is no back story/history for the character - yet as Hebrews 7 points out Paul is making the case for Christ as High Priest - and only Levites could be a priest according to scripture...so he is making the argument from Abraham that this is one greater than both Levi and Abraham.


This to me is a non-sequiter. It matters not that Paul was just looking for an example. If Moses did not actually write that M. was without parents and Paul was basing his argument off of Moses’ writings, then Paul would be either deliberately deceiving his readers or he was in serious error. In either case, Paul would be disqualified from writing any part of the infallible Word of God. 2/3rds of the New Testament should then be ripped out.


He based it on what his readers would quickly recognize in Moses' writing to make his case that Christ is greater and above that system of priesthood.

And they would have recognized that Paul was reading his own thoughts into Moses’ writing and he would have been kicked out of the Christian community.


Neither did Paul's readers - he simply points out that the historic record for Melchizedek mentions no date of death and no parents mentioned as we find it in the historic account. Paul is using that feature of the account to do a comparison. Type vs antitype.


This is the only thing that Moses wrote about Mechisedek:


After Abram returned from defeating Kedorlaomer and the kings allied with him, the king of Sodom came out to meet him in the Valley of Shaveh (that is, the King’s Valley). Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High, and he blessed Abram, saying, “Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth. And praise be to God Most High, who delivered your enemies into your hand.”

Genesis 14:17 - 20


Notice that Moses wrote nothing about Melcizedek’s parents or the date of his death.


This is what Paul wrote:


He is without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever.

Hebrews 7:3


Paul did not write simply that Moses did not mention no date of death and no parents, as you said. He wrote that “he is without father or mother or genealogy”. If Paul came to that conclusion from nothing else than Moses’ writings, then Paul would be wrong. There is nothing in Moses’ writing that would lead a reader to this conclusion.


The Lamb was a type of Christ - does not mean that the lamb is God, or God the Son etc. You are not distinguishing between type vs antitype.


First, this is another non-sequiter.


Second, the lamb is not God’s Son but since Jesus is the Son of God and Jesus is the Lamb of God then the Son of God is the Lamb of God.


(Not claiming that his readers should expect to see a very old Melchizedek walking around). - Then He makes the case by contrast that Christ "lives forever".


If Paul made the case that Jesus lives forever based on the above writing of Moses then it would have been a very poor case, since Moses never even implied that Melchizedek never had parents and never died.



3 Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually.


23 Also there were many priests, because they were prevented by death from continuing. 24 But He, because He continues forever, has an unchangeable priesthood. 25 Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.

26 For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens; 27 who does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people’s, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. 28 For the law appoints as high priests men who have weakness, but the word of the oath, which came after the law, appoints the Son who has been perfected forever.


Paul used this as an argument to prove that Jesus has a Biblical claim to priesthood above all humans.


I agree with Jesus being our high priest forever (which is why we Catholics believe that Jesus’ sacrifice is perpetual in the Mass. If our salvation was finished on Calvary then Jesus would not still be our high priest. When Jesus said “It is finished” He was not saying that our salvation is finished. It is only that He finished all the OT prophesies of His sufferings. Otherwise, He would not continue to be a high priest).


But to have Paul base his argument by twisting the writing of Moses to say something that he never intended to say is either deliberately deceptive or in serious error. I recall Martin Luther once saying that the Bible is so clear to understand that a simple ploughboy could understand it. But if what you argue is true, that Paul taking his argument from Moses even though Moses never intended to say that and yet Paul is nor deceptive nor confused, then that ploughboy would find it hopeless to ever make sense out of the scripture. And at this point I would direct that ploughboy to the nearest Catholic Church to convert. You would have proven to the ploughboy that he needs the Church to help him understand the Bible.


There is a rule in philosophy call Occam’s Razor, which is that the simplest explanation is often the right explanation. We Catholics have a much simpler explanation. The reason that Paul’s argument for Jesus’ perpetual priesthood from Moses seems forced is because Paul never intended his argument to be based on Moses. He was basing it on oral tradition within Judaism. It was oral tradition that said that Melchizedek was without parents and that he never died. With this explanation, Paul would not have been deceptive nor in error. So his writings do not have to be ripped out of the Bible (YAY!) and that ploughboy can continue to be confident that he can understand the Bible without the need for the Catholic Church to interpret it for him (boo!).
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I did not think I was saying anything controversial here. I am reading the posts here from Protestants. Even you refer to the miracles I listed as “gimmicks”


But in my experience within Protestantism, with almost half the time in Pentecostalism, I found that the non-Pentecostals were against miracle and Pentecostals were for them.
Okay. I suppose the Pentecostals would be more likely to find miracles where other Christians would not, but I don't really think that the other Protestants are "against miracles," just less likely to believe every claim that comes along.

This is a very specious argument. So only CATHOLIC miracles are gimmicks!
No, but Catholics obviously deal in that kind of "miracle" more than other people do, as the OP shows us.
 
Upvote 0

GingerBeer

Cool and refreshing with a kick!
Mar 26, 2017
3,511
1,348
Australia
✟119,825.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Catholics obviously deal in that kind of "miracle"
If you mean visitations and strange eucharistic things then you're right. Catholics do report them more than any other groups I've heard about. Orthodox like folk tale style miracles of monks who say clever things that turn out to be miraculously verified. Pentecostals tell stories about healing miracles and walking on water or raising the dead that cannot be verified by any but alleged eye witnesses who no one ever manages to find. Most Protestants don't make miracle claims beyond affirming their belief in the miracles recorded in the scriptures.

The lesson to learn is "beware of miracle claims as proofs for doctrine".
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
If you mean visitations and strange eucharistic things then you're right.
Yes. It occurred to me yesterday that I should have been clearer about that. A host at Mass turning into a baby or bleeding flesh would be in that category, whereas someone being cured of an incurable disease would be a different sort of miracle, right?

Most Protestants don't make miracle claims beyond affirming their belief in the miracles recorded in the scriptures.
That is probably safe to say, although Protestants I know do not deny that God works miracles in the everyday lives of people which, however, do not then become huge news stories or the object of pilgrimages, etc.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,507
Georgia
✟899,902.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
True. But in Hebrews 7 Paul is looking for an example where Abraham paid tithes to the person in Heb 7 so that he can continue to make the case from Hebrews 3 that Christ is greater than Moses and than Abraham.

So while you are correct that some other examples exist where there is no back story/history for the character - yet as Hebrews 7 points out Paul is making the case for Christ as High Priest - and only Levites could be a priest according to scripture...so he is making the argument from Abraham that this is one greater than both Levi and Abraham.

He based it on what his readers would quickly recognize in Moses' writing to make his case that Christ is greater and above that system of priesthood.

Paul's simply points out that the historic record for Melchizedek mentions no date of death and no parents mentioned as we find it in the historic account. Paul is using that feature of the account to do a comparison. Type vs antitype.

The Lamb was a type of Christ - does not mean that the lamb is God, or God the Son etc. You are not distinguishing between type vs antitype.

(Not claiming that his readers should expect to see a very old Melchizedek walking around). - Then He makes the case by contrast that Christ "lives forever".

3 Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually.

23 Also there were many priests, because they were prevented by death from continuing. 24 But He, because He continues forever, has an unchangeable priesthood. 25 Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.
26 For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens; 27 who does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people’s, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. 28 For the law appoints as high priests men who have weakness, but the word of the oath, which came after the law, appoints the Son who has been perfected forever.

Paul used this as an argument to prove that Jesus has a Biblical claim to priesthood above all humans.


This to me is a non-sequiter. It matters not that Paul was just looking for an example. If Moses did not actually write that M. was without parents

Certainly we would all agree that Moses never writes "Melchizedek was without parents" -- I don't see any way around that.

and Paul was basing his argument off of Moses’ writings,

Paul is using the well known story of M from Moses' writings but as 2Tim 3:16 points out his argument is based on inspiration from God.

So he simply says that the account M is one that is "made LIKE Christ" in that the account provides no birth, no death and no parents. The argument being that M is a "type" of Christ. The lambs themselves were "not Christ" but they were a "type" of Christ - the "Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world".


we Catholics believe that Jesus’ sacrifice is perpetual in the Mass .

Hebrews 10
8 After saying above, “Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You have not desired, nor have You taken pleasure in them” (which are offered according to the Law), 9 then He said, “Behold, I have come to do Your will.” He takes away the first in order to establish the second. 10 By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; 12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 waiting from that time onward until His enemies be made a footstool for His feet. 14 For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified....
18 Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin."


Heb 9
25 nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own. 26 Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. 27 And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, 28 so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.

Heb 8
4 Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all,
 
Upvote 0

Jonathan Walkerin

Well-Known Member
Feb 12, 2019
3,720
2,772
44
Stockholm
✟72,396.00
Country
Sweden
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
The FDA has a saying: It is not documented then it didn’t happen.

Unfortunately, something documented does not mean it happened either. It is way cheaper, faster and easier just to document something than actually follow the process.
 
Upvote 0

Jonathan Walkerin

Well-Known Member
Feb 12, 2019
3,720
2,772
44
Stockholm
✟72,396.00
Country
Sweden
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Go back to what you were told.

A group of atheist medical doctors doing a controlled hospital trial, certified precisely what I said. And when after 20 days she passed the test they extended another 20, before make the statement " beyond science to explain".

I could care less what I am "told" without single shred of evidence.

Link the trial results. If she did not recieve any fluids for 40 days and stayed alive I will agree it was a miracle.

How do I figure I get nothing again........
 
Upvote 0

Jonathan Walkerin

Well-Known Member
Feb 12, 2019
3,720
2,772
44
Stockholm
✟72,396.00
Country
Sweden
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Great example of the trivial nature of these miracles might be Lourdes

Lourdes - Wikipedia

Around 6 million visitors a year and what have we got according to Catholic Church

Lourdes miracles get a little easier | World news | The Guardian

"A total of 67 miraculous healings have been recognised at Lourdes since 1858, when a 14-year-old peasant girl claimed that she had seen the Virgin Mary in a cave. However, there have only been four miracles since 1978"

Four "miracles" from among tens of millions of visitors. Such a number that is statistically insignificant enough to be meaningless.
 
Upvote 0

Not David

I'm back!
Apr 6, 2018
7,356
5,235
25
USA
✟231,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Great example of the trivial nature of these miracles might be Lourdes

Lourdes - Wikipedia

Around 6 million visitors a year and what have we got according to Catholic Church

Lourdes miracles get a little easier | World news | The Guardian

"A total of 67 miraculous healings have been recognised at Lourdes since 1858, when a 14-year-old peasant girl claimed that she had seen the Virgin Mary in a cave. However, there have only been four miracles since 1978"

Four "miracles" from among tens of millions of visitors. Such a number that is statistically insignificant enough to be meaningless.
Lol, do you think miracles have to be thousand of times? God does it the timeshe wants. Face it, you are being led by rationalism which put nations in prelest about their own importance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: packermann
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Lol, do you think miracles have to be thousand of times?
.
Well, the church herself promotes and encourages these pilgrimages made by people hoping for a cure at Lourdes. So, yes...if we are speaking of the Catholic "miracles" that are marketed to Catholic people.

And, by the way, fewer than 100 actual curative miracles have been certified by the church despite the millions of visits people have made to Lourdes (and these are not necessarily miracles anyway).
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
.
Well, the church herself promotes and encourages these pilgrimages made by people hoping for a cure at Lourdes. So, yes...if we are speaking of the Catholic "miracles" that are marketed to Catholic people.

And, by the way, fewer than 100 actual curative miracles have been certified by the church despite the millions of visits people have made to Lourdes (and these are not necessarily miracles anyway).
It's funny that you only accept documentation of a miracle to agree that a miracle occurred, yet when a doctrine gets codified, you believe that's the time that the doctrine became belief.
We believe that many miracles happen, but few can be actually verified, and we believe that a doctrine becomes codified, though the belief of that doctrine was believed long before.
Doctrines are often believed long before they become doctrine, and usually in response to a question about some belief. Miracles can happen without the Church investigating, and in fact are only documented much later, in most cases.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: packermann
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
.
Well, the church herself promotes and encourages these pilgrimages made by people hoping for a cure at Lourdes. So, yes...if we are speaking of the Catholic "miracles" that are marketed to Catholic people.

And, by the way, fewer than 100 actual curative miracles have been certified by the church despite the millions of visits people have made to Lourdes (and these are not necessarily miracles anyway).
The Church doesn't promote anything of the kind, either. The approve of what's happening at Lourdes, but they don't promote. In fact, Medugorje has been disapproved, and yet millions make pilgrimages there. So it's people that make pilgrimage sites popular.
 
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
You should care less, if you are ever to learn.
Every assumption you made was false , because you failed to read the first post " medical trial"

Had you researched it at all you would find the report. It is on many websites and in a dozen books.

The originals in Portuguese.

Here a translation of one or two paras on EWTN site
<We the undersigned, Dr C. A. di Lima, Professor of the Faculty of Medicine of Oporto and Dr E. A. D. de Azevedo, doctor graduate of the same Faculty, testify that, having examined Alexandrina Maria da Costa, aged 39, born and resident at Balasar, of the district of Povoa de Varzim ... have confirmed her paralysis.... And we also testify that the bedridden woman, from 10 June to 20 July 1943 remained in the sector for infantile paralysis at the Hospital of Foce del Duro, under the direction of Dr Araujo and under the day and night surveillance by impartial persons desirous of discovering the truth of her fast. Her abstinence from solids and liquids was absolute during all that time. We testify also that she retained her weight, and her temperature, breathing, blood pressure, pulse and blood were normal while her mental faculties were constant and lucid and she had not, during these forty days, any natural necessities.>

The certificate continues:

<The examination of the blood, made three weeks after her arrival in the hospital, is attached to this certificate and from it one sees how, considering the aforesaid abstinence from solids and liquids, science naturally has no explanation. The laws of physiology and biochemistry cannot account for the survival of this sick woman for forty days of absolute fast in the hospital, more so in that she replied daily to many interrogations and sustained very many conversations, showing an excellent disposition and a perfect lucidity of spirit. As for the phenomena observed every Friday at about 3 p.m. (i.e. her ecstasies), we believe they belong to the mystical order.... For the sake of the truth, we have prepared this certificate which we sign. Oporto, 26 July 1943.>

Note - they were atheists intent on debunking it, ended up confirming

Many others checked it.

A distinguished professor prof Marquez, pernambuco who carefully examined the medical reports and other details of the examinations made on Alexandrina testified:


<Now this abstinence from all food during such a long period of time is incompatible with life, and much less with the maintenance of normal temperature. respiration pulse, blood pressure, etc.... Her intellectual life is intense, her relationships are perfect, her faculties and senses are retained in an absolute manner.... This extraordinary case, rather I would say exceptional case, can in no way be explained by purely natural means, or through scientific data. The inflammation of the spinal cord, which is most probably the cause of the paralysis, has nothing to do with her abstinence from food, being merely a parallel illness.>

Etc.


It is pointless presenting more of the mountain of evidence to you if you refuse to read the assertions or research it.

If I post another I expect you to take it seriously. Read the evidence before present pure Prejudice

It is your job to research if you want to know truth, till then stop misleading others with assumptions about something you seem to know little about.



I could care less what I am "told" without single shred of evidence.

Link the trial results. If she did not recieve any fluids for 40 days and stayed alive I will agree it was a miracle.

How do I figure I get nothing again........
 
Upvote 0

packermann

Junior Member
Nov 30, 2003
1,437
372
70
Northwest Suburbs of Chicago, IL
✟37,882.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Republican
Unfortunately, something documented does not mean it happened either. It is way cheaper, faster and easier just to document something than actually follow the process.

But if its not documented how do you know that the process was followed?

I have been working as a computer programmer for a pharmaceutical industry where everything is heavily documented. Before I worked here, I worked at software design company. It was far cheaper, faster, and easier to in a non-regulated software design company. I could modify one line of code, test it, implement it into production in one day, maybe even less. But a regulated pharmaceutical company is 90% documentation and only 10% coding and testing. It takes weeks, maybe even months, to change one line of code. It is understandable, since one little mistake in a pharmaceutical company can mean someone dies. That is why documentation is important. But it is certainly not cheaper, faster, and easier.


True, documentation can be still be in error. But it is less likely to be in error than no documentation. You tend to be extra careful in following the process when have to sign a document testifying that the process was followed, knowing that if you falsified the documentation and was discovered it means prison time.
 
Upvote 0

Jonathan Walkerin

Well-Known Member
Feb 12, 2019
3,720
2,772
44
Stockholm
✟72,396.00
Country
Sweden
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
True, documentation can be still be in error. But it is less likely to be in error than no documentation. You tend to be extra careful in following the process when have to sign a document testifying that the process was followed, knowing that if you falsified the documentation and was discovered it means prison time.

Yeah, I am sure there are different degrees of documentation and in those cases where forgery can lead to jail sentences there will be more enthusiasm for following the proper process.

Still, there are plenty of people who dump their industrial waste to woods and sign it up as something different.....
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

packermann

Junior Member
Nov 30, 2003
1,437
372
70
Northwest Suburbs of Chicago, IL
✟37,882.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Republican
Certainly we would all agree that Moses never writes "Melchizedek was without parents" -- I don't see any way around that.


And yet Protestants still try to get around that because they cannot accept the fact that Paul would take some truth that is not in the WRITTEN Word of God. Paul must have taken it from the NON-WRITTEN Word of God. Faith comes not only be reading, but hearing the Word of God.

And this is not the first time the NT writer have done this this.

Matthew wrote that Joseph, Mary, and Jesus move to Nazareth fulfilled the prophesy “And he shall be called a Nazarene” (Matthew 2:23). But google this sentence. It is not found anywhere in the Old Testament. Protestant scholars are in a tizzy about this. Instead of accepting that there is an oral tradition that contains this prophesy that go through all sorts of contortions on how Matthew can be citing a prophesy in the written word of God even though this prophesy does not exist in the Bible except in Matthew. I do not understand it that well, but here is the just of it, I think.

1. Nazareth has a similar-sounding word, “netzer” in Hebrew, which is translated “shoot”, “sprout”, or “branch”

2. Jesus came to restore the kingdom

3. Jeremiah uses the “sprout” imagery to refer to the Messiah-King

4. So Jesus being call a Nazarene means He is the Messiah-king

This seem to be convoluted to me. But maybe I just do not understand it. Maybe I am just too simple-minded. But it seems that Jesus was called a Nazarene because He and His family once lived in Nazareth and Matthew did not take this prophesy from anywhere in the Old Testament. It was taking a prophesy that was never written but only passed down orally.

But I did find a web site, The Journal of Biblical Accuracy, which does not seem to be Catholic. It points out that two passages in the Gospel of Matthew (Matt 2:23 and Mat 27: 9-10) refer to prophesies that do not exist! This journal says that in both cases, Matthew said “what was SPOKEN”. They were spoken and never written down. In other words, they were part of oral tradition.

Prophecies: spoken vs Written

The Protestant web site is willing to accept the obvious, that the New Testament does not just rely on the written Word of God but on what was never written down. So Paul could argue from Melchizedek not having parents from oral tradition, which is the simplest explanation.

I one was on another forum where an atheist had a Aha! moment. He presented Matthew 2:23 was absolute proof that the Bible could be from God because it has errors. Matthew quoted from the Old Testament where the quoted never existed! I pointed out that the verse does not say "what was WRITTEN by the prophets" but it said "what was SPOKEN by the prophets". The reason that it this quote was not found in the the written Word of God is because Matthew never intended to be found there. It was found in what was transmitted orally. This atheist immediately dropped the argument.

Some protestants are so nervous about conceding some use of oral tradition from the NT writers that they make Christianity look foolish to non-Christians, especially atheists.

Paul is using the well known story of M from Moses' writings but as 2Tim 3:16 points out his argument is based on inspiration from God.


Paul wrote that “ALL scripture is inspired by God”. He did not write “ONLY scripture is inspired by God”. Also, at the time of Paul’s writing, the New Testament was still being developed. All they had at the time that was considered scripture was the Old Testament. So if Paul had meant that only scripture he would have meant only the Old Testament. The New Testament would then not be inspired.


[/quote

So he simply says that the account M is one that is "made LIKE Christ" in that the account provides no birth, no death and no parents. The argument being that M is a "type" of Christ. The lambs themselves were "not Christ" but they were a "type" of Christ - the "Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world".

But Paul did not write that the account of Mechizedek provides no birth, no death and no parents. He wrote that M. HAD no birth, no death and no parents. That is a big difference. If he got that M. had no birth, no death and no parents from Moses then he misquoted Moses. This means he would be in error and his writings should be ripped out the Bible. Or we can accept the fact that Paul was not referring to Moses but to an oral source.

Again, this is an example of being unnecessarily vulnerable to atheists. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck then it is likely to be a duck. The Catholic explanation is much simpler to understand.

Hebrews 10

8 After saying above, “Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You have not desired, nor have You taken pleasure in them” (which are offered according to the Law), 9 then He said, “Behold, I have come to do Your will.” He takes away the first in order to establish the second. 10 By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11 Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; 12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 waiting from that time onward until His enemies be made a footstool for His feet. 14 For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified....

18 Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin."



Heb 9

25 nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own. 26 Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. 27 And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, 28 so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.


Heb 8

4 Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all,

We Catholics do not believe that Christ is being sacrificed all over again. We believe that there is only ONE sacrifice and that the sacrifice of the Mass is NOT another sacrifice but is one and the same sacrifice as the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. God is outside of time. When we participate in the sacrifice of the Mass God transports us spiritually to the cross of Christ, so that when Christ says about those at the foot of the cross “Father, forgive them”, He is praying for those who had participated in the Mass. Just as God is three and yet one, so is our sacrifice two events and yet one. Christianity is a paradox, a mystery – where three Persons are one God and two events are one sacrifice.

The sacrifice of Mass has been prophesied in the Old Testament:

For My name will be great among the nations, from the rising to the setting of the sun. In every place, incense and pure offerings will be presented in My name, because My name will be great among the nations,” says the LORD of Hosts.

Malachi 1:11

This passage is very problematic for Protestants. It could not have been fulfilled in the Old Testament. In the Old Testament, offerings could only be offered in the Jewish Temple. But here God promised that the offering will be “in ever place”, and, as a result, God’s name will be great among the nations (Gentiles), not just Israel. But, according to the Protestant, it cannot in be the New Testament because there should be no more sacrifices. And it cannot be after the return of Christ, since all agree there will be no sacrifices during the millenium. So was God lying?

Not only that, but the earliest non-Biblical document, the Didache (called the Teaching of the Twelve which scholars have dated as early as 70 AD, when many the apostle were still alive, or as late as 150 AD, still mighty early) says that the Malachi prophesy was fulfilled in the Eucharist.

But on the Lord's day, after that ye have assembled together, break bread and give thanks, having in addition confessed your sins, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let not any one who hath a quarrel with his companion join with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be polluted, for it is that which is spoken of by the Lord. In every place and time offer unto me a pure sacrifice, for I am a great King, saith the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the Gentiles.

Didache 14: 1 to 3

The Didache | CARM.org

This is not to put non-Biblical documents on the same level as the Bible. It is merely looking at the historical context of the New Testament. It is very likely that the New Testament Church saw the breaking of the bread to be the pure sacrifice prophesied by Malachi! Remember, if this was written in the first century, then some or most of the apostles would have been still alive! But even is the Didache was written later, this shows what the Early Church believed. It is difficult to believe that the Early church would have misunderstood the apostles so quickly.

Many Protestants are taught that Christians were deceived by the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages, the earliest this deception being at the time of Constantine in the fourth century. But this document proves that Christians believed in the breaking of the bread being a sacrifice from the very beginning.

This reinforces the Catholic interpretation of how Christ is the same as Melchizedek. Just as Melchizedek offered bread and wine for sacrifice, so did Christ, through the priest, offers the bread and wine as sacrifice. In the Old Covenant, God instructed Moses to not only offer bulls, lambs, and goats for sacrifices, but to also offer bread (grain) as a memorial sacrifice. At the Last Supper, Jesus said when He gave them the bread to “do this, in remembrance of Me”. The Greek word that Jesus used for “remembrance” is the same word in the Greek Septuagint for the memorial sacrifice. The Book of Hebrews says that there is no longer a sacrifice of bulls and goats, but he never said anything about there is no longer the bread offering, the memorial sacrifice.









Thanks, Paul My Web Site: Catholic Crusader
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Root of Jesse
Upvote 0

packermann

Junior Member
Nov 30, 2003
1,437
372
70
Northwest Suburbs of Chicago, IL
✟37,882.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Republican
Lol, do you think miracles have to be thousand of times? God does it the timeshe wants. Face it, you are being led by rationalism which put nations in prelest about their own importance.

Amen to that. Let God be God! We should not box God by saying that there are certain miracles God cannot not or will not do.

Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?
Romans 11:34
 
Upvote 0