Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Another scripture contradiction. It says He suffered once, then sat down. RC has a figure eternally on the cross.
Another scripture contradiction. It says He suffered once, then sat down. RC has a figure eternally on the cross.
VS
Hebrews 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
The Jesus should have said, "It's only just begun!" rather than "It is finished!"
No, it's not. It's an entrance into the Passover. The Greek word is anamnesis. It means more than holding some distant event as a memory.So it is a memorial? The Passover is.
Ex. 12:14 And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the Lord throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever.
The death angel did not visit in subsequent years requiring protection. You argue for a Protestant view, even Zwinglian.
No, it's not. It's an entrance into the Passover. The Greek word is anamnesis.
It means more than holding some distant event as a memory.
That's all fine. It's not a passive process. When Jews remember the Passover, they eat a lamb and eat unleavened bread, and are supposed to be girt as the Hebrews were at the Passover. It's a re-enactment, a re-presentation. It's the difference between remembering Gettysburg, and re-enacting the battle. It's not fighting it all over again, either.
That particular greek word is used only 4 times in the NT, including 1 time in the Gospels
Greek Lexicon :: G364 (YLT)
Strong's Number G364 matches the Greek ἀνάμνησις (anamnēsis),
which occurs 4 times in 4 verses in the Greek concordance
Luk 22:19
And having taken bread, having given thanks, he brake and gave to them, saying, 'This is my body, that for you is being given, this do ye -- to remembrance of me.'
1Cr 11:24
and having given thanks, he brake, and said, 'Take ye, eat ye, this is my body, that for you is being broken; this do ye -- to the remembrance of me.'
1Cr 11:25
In like manner also the cup after the supping, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood; this do ye, as often as ye may drink it -- to the remembrance of me;'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamnesis_(Christianity)
Anamnesis (from the Attic Greek word ἀνάμνησις meaning reminiscence and/or memorial sacrifice)[1], in Christianity is a liturgical statement in which the Church refers to the memorial character of the Eucharist and/or to the Passion, Resurrection and Ascension of Christ.
It has its origin in Jesus' words at the Last Supper, "Do this in memory of me" (Ancient Greek: "τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν", (Luke 22:19, 1 Corinthians 11:24-25).
In a wider sense, Anamnesis refers to a key concept in the liturgical theology: in the worship the faithfuls make memory of God's saving deeds.[1]
This memorial aspect is not simply a passive process but one by which the Christian can actually enter into the Paschal mystery.
.
If someone is baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, how can it be a heretical baptism?
Regarding your PS, so do we.
Why did Stephen see Him standing in Acts 7
http://www.christianforums.com/t6719420-6/#post42547190
Stoning of Stephen against the Law
Acts 7:56 and said, "Look! I see the heavens having been opened/an-ewgmenouV <455> (5772)
and the Son of the Man standing out of rights of the GOD!"
Reve 19:11 And I saw the heaven having been opened/an-ewgmenon <455> (5772) and behold!
a white horse and the One sitting on him/it *called faithful and true and in righteousness He is judging and battling.
.
That's all fine. It's not a passive process. When Jews remember the Passover, they eat a lamb and eat unleavened bread, and are supposed to be girt as the Hebrews were at the Passover. It's a re-enactment, a re-presentation. It's the difference between remembering Gettysburg, and re-enacting the battle. It's not fighting it all over again, either.
So, in your reenactment, you have those soldiers dying again. Otherwise, silly comparison.
"Came to mean" is simply to say that the apostles did not originally mean it that way. St. Peter knew nothing of this "came to mean".
... the words of that prayer, as I recall "may this sacrifice be pleasing to God"; ...
Why do you think a bishop, archbishop (which is a bishop with more responsibility) or a cardinal (which is a bishop with more responsibility) or a pope (which is a bishop with more responsibility) has greater honor? They only have more souls on their hands that they are responsible for. I dunno, personally, I would not want to be in one of their places. I wouldn't even want the responsibility of being a parish priest.
A bishop isn't holier than a priest. He just has more responsibility than a parish priest. He's shown the capability of leading a larger group of sheep, but not necessarily that he's better.
The comments in the post above are inaccurate insofar as they do not take into account the following information.
The Greek word for priest is ᾿Ιησοῦς but it is seldom used of new testament church leaders. In English the only word that has come to us from this Greek word is hierarchy. But priest (which comes from πρεσβυτέρουtook on a double task and came to mean both a Ιησοῦς and a πρεσβυτέρου. Thus priest came to be seen not only as a presbyter but also as a hierarch. Elder is a common modern translation for the Greek word πρεσβυτέρου (presbyter is the English version of the word). In English the word "priest" is derived from πρεσβυτέρου - you can check that in a good English dictionary by looking up the etymology of the word "priest".
Bishop is a biblical title - some English bible translations use "overseer" instead of "bishop" to translate the Greek word ἐπίσκοπον (episcopon). You can find it in the KJV and in a number of modern English bibles. So Catholics using "priest" and "bishop" is biblical.
Archbishops are just bishops in larger diocese (called archdiocese). While cardinal carries the idea of a hinge, or a pivot, upon which a structure turns. Thus a cardinal is a bishop who serves as pivot for turning from a deceased pope to a new pope. Cardinals are still only bishops. Their only distinction is that they elect a new pope when the time comes for such an election.
It is also significant that in English these issues are compounded by the English language itself, while in Greek, Latin, Italian, French and other languages no such difficulties exist because the ancient distinction between Ιησοῦς, πρεσβυτέρου, and ἐπίσκοπον were maintained. And it ought to be noted that the majority of Catholics are not native English speakers nor does that Catholic Church write theology primarily in English so the words and terms used in Latin and French as well as Italian (which are the main languages used in Catholic theology) are not always strictly differentiated as they are in Latin etcetera.
It's not repeated. We do the same thing the Israelites do at Passover. They enter into the one and only Passover.
That's all fine. It's not a passive process. When Jews remember the Passover, they eat a lamb and eat unleavened bread, and are supposed to be girt as the Hebrews were at the Passover. It's a re-enactment, a re-presentation. It's the difference between remembering Gettysburg, and re-enacting the battle. It's not fighting it all over again, either.
More to the point is that saint Peter and all the other apostles knew nothing of the English language. The bible isn't a piece of English literature. In fact in 33 AD English as a language didn't even exist.
The reason we have crucifixes in our churches is because while everyone has a cross to bear, no one has yet to experience what it's like to be resurrected.
Latest addition to the list:
Elimination of the crucifix
You won't take the words of our Catholic frineds, so you most likely will not take the words of a Lutheran either, but here goes... in the offertory prayer, Christ is not being re-sacrificed; the words of that prayer, as I recall "may this sacrifice be pleasing to God"; that sacrifice is not re-nailing our Lord to a cross, re-killing him; it is what is being done that is being offered, that is the celebration of the Mass.
It is this sacrifice of the work of the Priest and the parishioners that we Lutherans take issue with; they are not re-sacrificing Christ; He did it once and for all. The "for all" bit is why we Lutherans reject the idea of cooperation with one's salvation.
That and the illogical use of logic to support transubstantiation are the only two issues that we have with the Catholic Mass. Period.
Please stop telling everyone that the Catholics re-sacrifice Christ as though you know better than they and their catechism do. It makes you look foolish and uninformed, or resolutely ignorant, and weakens any case you have to promote protestant beliefs.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?