Protestant errors and inventions (3)

[tadoflamb]

Another scripture contradiction. It says He suffered once, then sat down. RC has a figure eternally on the cross.

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

 

[drstevej]

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;

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Standing Up

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;

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.




.

 

[Yab Yum]

The Jesus should have said, "It's only just begun!" rather than "It is finished!"

And in fact if he had said that about my own birth, he would have been correct, because in that moment I was created, that is, I was dead, but then made alive. Creation is sacrifice. Every parent knows that - including our dear faithful Abba. That's why we have crucifixes.

13 I am Alpha, I am Omega, I am before all, I am at the end of all, the beginning of all things and their end.

 

[Root of Jesse]

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.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by drstevej

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.

​

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 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 &#7936;&#957;&#8049;&#956;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#953;&#962; (anamn&#275;sis),
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 &#7936;&#957;&#940;&#956;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#953;&#962; 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: "&#964;&#959;&#8166;&#964;&#959; &#960;&#959;&#953;&#949;&#8150;&#964;&#949; &#949;&#7984;&#962; &#964;&#8052;&#957; &#7952;&#956;&#8052;&#957; &#7936;&#957;&#940;&#956;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#953;&#957;", (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.



.

 

[Root of Jesse]

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 &#7936;&#957;&#8049;&#956;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#953;&#962; (anamn&#275;sis),
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 &#7936;&#957;&#940;&#956;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#953;&#962; 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: "&#964;&#959;&#8166;&#964;&#959; &#960;&#959;&#953;&#949;&#8150;&#964;&#949; &#949;&#7984;&#962; &#964;&#8052;&#957; &#7952;&#956;&#8052;&#957; &#7936;&#957;&#940;&#956;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#953;&#957;", (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.



.

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.

 

[Standing Up]

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.

You may need to read the letters from Cyprian, Firmilian, and others about the issue, rather than Sunday School summary. Rome allowed baptisms of demons, Marcion, and others as equal to Christian baptism.

 

[Standing Up]

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.




.

Standing as regards judgment (like it says in your quote).

Sitting is in regards to priest activity. The Levitical priest model has their priest standing and offering sacrifice at the altar daily, day after day, because it is ineffective. (Heb. 10:11-
And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins

The Melchizedek model has the high priest (Christ) sitting because there is no more sacrifice; it was done once; it is finished. (Heb. 10:12-
But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

 

[Standing Up]

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.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

So, in your reenactment, you have those soldiers dying again. Otherwise, silly comparison.

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.

 

[MoreCoffee]

"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".

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.

 

[MoreCoffee]

... the words of that prayer, as I recall "may this sacrifice be pleasing to God"; ...

Edit: The Orate, fratres - from preparation of the gifts - is like this:

Pray, brothers and sisters, that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father.​

The epiclesis of the mass is like this:

Make holy, therefore, these gifts, we pray, by sending down your Spirit upon them like the dew fall, so that they may become for us the Body and Blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ.​

And the Institution Narrative is like this:

At the time he was betrayed and entered willingly into his Passion, he took bread and, giving thanks, broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying:

Take this, all of you, and eat of it: for this is my Body which will be given up for you.

In a similar way, when supper was ended, he took the chalice and, once more giving thanks, he gave it to his disciples, saying:

Take this, all of you, and drink from it: for this is the chalice of my Blood, the Blood of the new and eternal covenant, which will be poured out for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins. Do this in memory of me.​

And the Anamnesis is like this:

Therefore, as we celebrate the memorial of his Death and Resurrection, we offer you, Lord, the Bread of life and the Chalice of salvation, giving thanks that you have held us worthy to be in your presence and minister to you.​

And the epiclesis concludes like this:

Humbly we pray that, partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, we may be gathered into one by the Holy Spirit.​

And finally the Intercessions are like this:

Remember, Lord, your Church,spread throughout the world, and bring her to the fullness of charity, together with Francis our Pope and Timothy our Bishop and all the clergy.

Remember also our brothers and sisters who have fallen asleep in the hope of the resurrection and all who have died in your mercy: welcome them into the light of your face. Have mercy on us all, we pray, that with the blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, with the blessed Apostles, and all the Saints who have pleased you throughout the ages, we may merit to be co-heirs to eternal life, and may praise and glorify you through your Son, Jesus Christ.​

God be with you, brother MarkRohfrietsch, may these words from the mass be of help to you and to all in their consideration of the truth about Catholic worship.

 

[bbbbbbb]

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.

My point is that the New Testament presents the radical concept that all saints are priests. It does not differentiate among priests, creating various castes of priests. In fact, Jesus Himself made it crystal clear that the one who would be greatest among us must be the servant of all. Servants were, and are, very undignified because of their work.

 

[bbbbbbb]

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 &#8127;&#921;&#951;&#963;&#959;&#8166;&#962; 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 &#960;&#961;&#949;&#963;&#946;&#965;&#964;&#941;&#961;&#959;&#965 took on a double task and came to mean both a &#921;&#951;&#963;&#959;&#8166;&#962; and a &#960;&#961;&#949;&#963;&#946;&#965;&#964;&#941;&#961;&#959;&#965;. 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 &#960;&#961;&#949;&#963;&#946;&#965;&#964;&#941;&#961;&#959;&#965; (presbyter is the English version of the word). In English the word "priest" is derived from &#960;&#961;&#949;&#963;&#946;&#965;&#964;&#941;&#961;&#959;&#965; - 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 &#7952;&#960;&#943;&#963;&#954;&#959;&#960;&#959;&#957; (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 &#921;&#951;&#963;&#959;&#8166;&#962;, &#960;&#961;&#949;&#963;&#946;&#965;&#964;&#941;&#961;&#959;&#965;, and &#7952;&#960;&#943;&#963;&#954;&#959;&#960;&#959;&#957; 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.

That is a very good description of the evolution of church organization over time. One of the difficulties in accepting the idea that the New Testament organization of the church was inadequate and in need of refining, is that it assumes that progressive revelation on this doctrine is necessary and that God, in His infinite ignorance, failed to consider what the Church really should have been. The Apostles failed miserably in their feeble attempts to organize the Church, leaving the task to more enlightened men of a later age.

 

[bbbbbbb]

It's not repeated. We do the same thing the Israelites do at Passover. They enter into the one and only Passover.

Jews certainly do no such thing. When was the last time you attended an Orthodox Jewish seder? If you follow the liturgy of the seder you will readily see that it is a memorial meal used to remind the Jews of God's deliverance in passing over them during the final plague on Egypt.

 

[bbbbbbb]

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.

They don't daub the lamb's blood on their doorposts nor do they gather up unleavened bread dough and pack their worldly goods for a physical exodus, do they?

 

[Standing Up]

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.

So, your own definitive statement "came to mean" was spurious to begin with. What was your point again?

Actually, you are right. You can't admit it, but you are right. As everyone knows and admits, the definitions changed.

 

[Standing Up]

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

Eh? Some people don't like the idea that RC implies it was not finished by leaving Him hanging.

 

[Standing Up]

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.

No idea what you are saying.

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.

1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."

They keep sacrificing sound better? Probably why they have crucifixes, rather than crosses.

Look, it does no good to say it is the same sacrifice and then say they are not the same because one was bloody and one not.

So, yeah, you are right. They aren't re-sacrificing Christ, they aren't sacrificing anything, except a piece of bread over which their priests have breathed (given the two are not identical at all, one w/ blood and one sans blood as they themselves brashly admit).