"The bigger the lie, the greater the acceptance," Adolph Hitler.

What bigger lie can there be than this, That the priest can change the wafer into the entire body of our Lord.

Fr. Chiniquy in his book Fifty Years in the Church of Rome recounts two occasions he took the "Bon Dieu" that is the good god, the consecrated wafer, to sick parisioners. On the first occasion the "Bon Dieu" was lost in deep snow and not seen again. The second he sheltered with a family overnight and it fell out of his pocket, and was left behind. The wife found his box and opened it and the "Bon Dieu" fell in the the baby's potty (do you call it that in the US?) What sort of God is it that you have that can be disolved in such a way?

You can see Woodrow's deleted chapters here: http://www.eaec.org/bibleanswers/christmas.htm You can also download Hislop's Two Babylons from this site.

Regards

Jesus said "This IS my Body. This IS my Blood"

That was good enough for the apostles. Good enough for the Church for 2000 years since the apostles first preached it.

Guess its good enough for me.

You tell Jesus He's a liar when you stand before Him.

Not me, brother!!!

Brother Ed

This is my body - This represents my body. This broken bread shows the manner in which my body will be broken; or this will serve to recall my dying sufferings to your remembrance. It is not meant that his body would be literally “broken” as the bread was, but that the bread would be a significant emblem or symbol to recall to their recollection his sufferings. It is not improbable that our Lord pointed to the broken bread, or laid his hands on it, as if he had said, “Lo, my body!” or, “Behold my body! - that which “represents” my broken body to you.” This “could not” be intended to mean that that bread was literally his body. It was not. His body was then before them “living.” And there is no greater absurdity than to imagine his “living body” there changed at once to a “dead body,” and then the bread to be changed into that dead body, and that all the while the “living” body of Jesus was before them.
Yet this is the absurd and impossible doctrine of the Roman Catholics, holding that the “bread” and “wine” were literally changed into the “body and blood” of our Lord. The language employed by the Saviour was in accordance with a common mode of speaking among the Jews, and exactly similar to that used by Moses at the institution of the Passover Exo_12:11; “It” - that is, the lamb - “is the Lord’s Passover.” That is, the lamb and the feast “represent” the Lord’s “passing over” the houses of the Israelites. It serves to remind you of it. It surely cannot be meant that that lamb was the literal “passing over” their houses - a palpable absurdity - but that it represented it. So Paul and Luke say of the bread, “This is my body broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.” This expresses the whole design of the sacramental bread. It is to call to “remembrance,” in a vivid manner, the dying sufferings of our Lord. The sacred writers, moreover, often denote that one thing is represented by another by using the word is. See Mat_13:37; “He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man” - that is, represents the Son of man. Gen_41:26; “the seven good kine are seven years” - that is, “represent” or signify seven years. See also Joh_15:1, Joh_15:5; Gen_17:10. The meaning of this important passage may be thus expressed: “As I give this broken bread to you to eat, so will I deliver my body to be afflicted and slain for your sins.”

For this is my blood - This “represents” my blood, as the bread does my body.
Luke and Paul vary the expression, adding what Matthew and Mark have omitted. “This cup is the new testament in my blood.” By this cup he meant the wine in the cup, and not the cup itself. Pointing to it, probably, he said, “This - ‘wine’ - represents my blood about to be, shed.” The phrase “new testament” should have been rendered “new covenant,” referring to the “covenant or compact” that God was about to make with people through a Redeemer. The “old” covenant was that which was made with the Jews by the sprinkling of the blood of sacrifices. See Exo_24:8; “And Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord hath made with you,” etc. In allusion to that, Jesus says, this cup is the new “covenant” in my blood; that is, which is “ratified, sealed, or sanctioned by my blood.” In ancient times, covenants or contracts were ratified by slaying an animal; by the shedding of its blood, imprecating similar vengeance if either party failed in the compact. See the notes at Heb_9:16. So Jesus says the covenant which God is about to form with people the new covenant, or the gospel economy is sealed or ratified with my blood.
Which is shed for many for the remission of sins - In order that sins may be remitted, or forgiven. That is, this is the appointed way by which God will pardon transgressions. That blood is efficacious for the pardon of sin:
1. Because it is “the life” of Jesus, the “blood” being used by the sacred writers as representing “life itself,” or as containing the elements of life, Gen_9:4; Lev_17:14. It was forbidden, therefore, to eat blood, because it contained the life, or was the life, of the animal. When, therefore, Jesus says that his blood was shed for many, it is the same as saying that His life was given for many. See the notes at Rom_3:25.
2. His life was given for sinners, or he died in the place of sinners as their substitute. By his death on the cross, the death or punishment due to them in hell may be removed and their souls be saved. He endured so much suffering, bore so much agony, that God was pleased to accept it in the place of the eternal torments of all the redeemed. The interests of justice, the honor and stability of his government, would be as secure in saving them in this manner as if the suffering were inflicted on them personally in hell. God, by giving his Son to die for sinners, has shown his infinite abhorrence of sin; since, according to his view, and therefore according to truth, nothing else would show its evil nature but the awful sufferings of his own Son. That he died “in the stead or place” of sinners is abundantly clear from the following passages of Scripture: Joh_1:29; Eph_5:2; Heb_7:27; 1Jo_2:2; 1Jo_4:10; Isa_53:10; Rom_8:32; 2Co_5:15.

Albert Barnes, Barnes' Notes on the New Testament.

Tha is not correct sir. If you read your Bible you will find that He said quite a bit more in conjunction with this. Nowhere in my Bible does it say He said, "This IS my body." (Period) and "This IS my blood. (Period) That is incorrect and is actually a sin to prescribe certain words to God the Son He did NOT say. Be careful when attempting to quote scripture. It can lead you into someplace you don't want to be. If you attempt to quote it, quote it correctly and give the proper reference (Book, chapter, and verse)

In Christ,
George Groce

And there is no greater absurdity than to imagine his “living body” there changed at once to a “dead body,” and then the bread to be changed into that dead body, and that all the while the “living” body of Jesus was before them.

Yet this is what the Apostles believed. So one must ask by what standard of understanding does this man believe otherwise.

Yet this is the absurd and impossible doctrine of the Roman Catholics, holding that the “bread” and “wine” were literally changed into the “body and blood” of our Lord.

It is the doctrine of the Church, which was one Church -- Orthodox East and Latin West -- for 1500 years. This belief is not something that the Roman rite made up. It has been the teaching of the Chruch, East and West, for 2000 years.

The language employed by the Saviour was in accordance with a common mode of speaking among the Jews, and exactly similar to that used by Moses at the institution of the Passover Exo_12:11; “It” - that is, the lamb - “is the Lord’s Passover.”

Wrong again. The idiom of Jewish speech that is used is one of not only calling to rememberance, but of actually participating in the event as you are remembering it. Therefore, as we remember the Lord's death, we also participate in that death by our consuming of and partaking of the Lord's Body and Blood.

By this cup he meant the wine in the cup, and not the cup itself. Pointing to it, probably, he said, “This - ‘wine’ - represents my blood about to be, shed.” The phrase “new testament” should have been rendered “new covenant,” referring to the “covenant or compact” that God was about to make with people through a Redeemer.

All covenants are made in blood. Even the covenant of marriage is consummated in a "blood offering" (Do you understand what happens in the nuptial bed or do I have to get out the paper and crayons for you?) This fact therefore is a stong indicator that the substance in the cup had to be the Savior's Blood because the covenant could not be made without Blood.

Which is shed for many for the remission of sins - In order that sins may be remitted, or forgiven. That is, this is the appointed way by which God will pardon transgressions. That blood is efficacious for the pardon of sin:
1. Because it is “the life” of Jesus, the “blood” being used by the sacred writers as representing “life itself,” or as containing the elements of life,

Well he finally gets one thing right. I guess even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while. Blood indeed represents the life. That is what a covenant is and that is why all covenants are blood covenants -- because two lives are being joined into one. The two become "one flesh" as is spoken of in scripture. One more reason the cup must have been the Blood of Christ. Remembering His life saves no one. Thousands of pagans remember that Jesus lived and died. Even the Muslims do that. Our salvation is through His Blood and our union with Him in that Blood (life).

Gen_9:4; Lev_17:14. It was forbidden, therefore, to eat blood, because it contained the life, or was the life, of the animal. When, therefore, Jesus says that his blood was shed for many, it is the same as saying that His life was given for many. See the notes at Rom_3:25.

that's right. The Blood contains the very life of Christ That is why we must drink His Blood to have His life. Mere mental assent to a bunch of facts does not create union with Him. Only drinking His Blood and eating His Flesh unites us to Him in reality. Intellectualism saves no one.

2. His life was given for sinners, or he died in the place of sinners as their substitute. By his death on the cross, the death or punishment due to them in hell may be removed and their souls be saved. He endured so much suffering, bore so much agony, that God was pleased to accept it in the place of the eternal torments of all the redeemed.

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong......typical Protestant claptrap. His life was given that mankind be reunited to God, the curse of Adam's covenantal disobedience removed, and heaven opened as a possibility. But each man must enter into the New Covenant for himself by the Blood of Christ. We must each "cut covenant" with God through the Blood of Christ. No Blood -- no covenant. It's that simple.

That he died “in the stead or place” of sinners is abundantly clear from the following passages of Scripture:

Notice how this man makes the scriptures say what they do not say

Jhn 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

Doesn't say it takes away individual sins. It says "the sins of THE WORLD" And I am supposed to believe this man when he interprets other passages of the Bible? Not on my life!!!

Eph 5:2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.

Says nothing about personal and individual sins!Could just as well mean that Jesus offered himself for the sins of the world. Or for the Church as a corporate group. All these are viable options as well.

Hbr 7:27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

I'll stop with this one because this is the most damning of his many misused verses. Did a high priest make the yearly offering of YOM KIPPUR for individuals or for the nation as a whole? Can you answer this? Let's see just how much you really understand of what the scriptures are teaching here.

Albert Barnes, Barnes' Notes on the New Testament.

And who is Albert Barnes that I should believe him over the teaching of the Apostles, especially since he is so obviously wrong

Mar 14:22 And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake [it], and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.

No wonder you are a Protestant. You are an ignoramous who doesn't even understand how to read. I'll accept your apology any time you wish to tender it.

Mar 14:23 And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave [it] to them: and they all drank of it.

Mar 14:24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

Do you at least have the honesty to be embarrassed by your lack of scriptural knowledge? This sort of thing is why the Church wisely prohibited private interpretation of the Holy Scriptures.

That is incorrect and is actually a sin to prescribe certain words to God the Son He did NOT say.

Then you and your Prottie friends are in deep kimchee, pal. After all, according to the author above, Jesus said "This is a mere rememberance of my death, when in fact, as shown above, He stated quite clearly that He was giving them His Body and Blood.

Not only do we have the words of Jesus in this regard, but the Apostles taught this. Therefore, they must hava learned it directly from Jesus Himself.

You should be careful when attempting to quote scripture. It can lead you into someplace you don't want to be. If you attempt to quote it, quote it correctly and give the proper reference (Book, chapter, and verse).

Just did. Now how do you justify changing the words of our Lord to suit your religious tastes?

Sir, the history of the Church is that from the very beginning, the elements were understood to be the very Body and Blood of the Lord. The idea that they were not did not appear until the Protestant Rebellion and men like Luther, Calvin, and Rogers began to deny the change of substance. You can follow them if you like. I will follow and obey the Church which our Lord put on earth and which is the "pillar and ground of truth"

1Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Notice that the Holy Scriptures are not called "the pillar and ground of the truth, but the Church is. That is because the Church is the only institution authorized to properly interpret the Holy Scriptures and is protected from teaching doctrinal and moral error by the charism of the Holy Spirit.

It is obvious -- painfully obvious to those who have eyes to see -- that this protection from error is not extended to those outside the Church. One only need look at the myriads of Protestant sects, isms, assemblies, cults, and denominations, all arguing with each other and yet all claiming to have the 100% "bible truth" to see that this is not the unity of truth of the Holy Spirit, but the spirit of chaos!!

You may follow the teachings of unenlightened men who rebelled from the Church our Lord established. You may participate in the doctrinal and moral chaos which is Protestantism. I will stick with the institution which is the "pillar and foundation of the truth" -- the Church Catholic

Brother Ed

(Proverbs 26:4) Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.


In Christ on Whom I stand,
George Groce

Jesus said "this is my body", not "this IS my body"

If we say there is no figure in this, we must accept that there is no figure when he said "27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." The cup is the blood, not the wine.

He also said

We also read

I leave you to draw conclusions.

Paul says

You will note that he says the body of Jesus was offered once for all, and yet the priests of Rome still claim to offer it over and over.
John says:

This city was not Jerusalem as is so often said, but Rome. The crucifiction took place outside the walls of Jerusalem but inside greater Rome. The Great City (Megatropolis) was the name the Greeks called Rome. Jerusalem was never called Sodom, but Rome still acts like Sodom. And her priests still claim to offer our Lord.

Assuming that Jesus meant the bread was his actual body (which I don't). That is a long way from the "priest" changing a wafer into that body.

There are in fact no priesthood in the Church, but the priesthood of all believers.

Precisely the conclusion I came to.

Love in Christ,

Jim

Sure, good argument.

The Psalms say God is a strong tower. That must mean He is made out of bricks and cement... built somewhere by someone in the Middle East.

Once again you show the typical scriptural ignorance which is typical of Protestantism.

The verse you are referring to is in the book of Hebrews and refers to the high priestly work of Jesus being offered once and forever instead of yearly as the Jewish high priests had done in the Old Covenant.

Now....for bonus points to win fabulous prizes and a free swim across the Tiber, answer the following (if you can).

1. What one function did the high priest do once a year that no other person on earth could do?

2. What was the meaning of this ceremony?

3. When it says that this offering is offered "once and forever," what does that mean for the Church as a corporate body?

4. Why could this ceremony not be for our personal sins?

5. How do we get forgiveness of sins in a covenantal relationship?

6. What does the high priest have to do with question # 5?

7. What does the priest offering the Mass do in a covenantal paradigm?

8. How does the Mass correspond to the nupital bed of marriage?

9. Interpret Hebrews 8:5 and Heb. 9: 23 - 24 and show how the Mass corresponds to the Jewish Passover.

10. How is the Passover Sedar different from the Yom Kippur ceremony?

Answer these correctly and you will win the best prize of all..............


You will RUN to your nearest Catholic parish and beg to be let in because you will realize that everything you have been taught as a Prottie is based on wretchedly bad hermeneutics, no understanding at all of the covenant of God, and a dash of outright lies about the Church.

But I doubt I'll hear as much as a whimper from you.....after all, one of you already folded when I posted answers to this nonsense.

Nice reply, George. Always run when you don't have an answer to someone? Or is this the first Catholic you ever met who could meet you on your turf and go toe-to-toe with ya without blinkin?

Brother Ed

I stand by my response. It comes directly from the Bible and applies very well in this situation.

In christ (who is not still hanging on a tree despite your Catholic heresy),
George

George,

Why do you state that Christ was crucified on a tree? The Bible and Saint Paul state the Cross of Christ. Luther retained the Crucifix in the Lutheran Church and Luther had received Christ as his Savior and Luther remained saved and went to Heaven of course because Luther did what the only requirement there is for salvation and gaining entrance into Heaven and that is that Luther had received Christ as his Savior.

Translation:

"I don't know the Bible very well, I can't answer your 10 questions, so I'll hide behind calling you names and acting real intellectual by attacking the Church."

Let me know when you are ready to discuss the Bible rather than to call names.

Brother Ed

Defensdeiforduoditty.....or whatever your name is,,, oh yeah......Ed.


Did you ever wonder why your answers were never answered? Because we understand that we cannot make a blind man see, that is Jesus Christs' job.

So, yet again, I will play your silly game, and answer you according to your folly.

Enter into the Holy of Holies.

First of all, the entering in into the Holy of Holies was not the entire ceremony, I can only assume you are referring to this specific part of the entire ceremony. The high priest sprinkled the blood sacrifice upon the mercy seat of the ark of the covenant, needing constant repetition, because it was never fully finished "once and for all".

Again, because of the continuity disparity, I can only assume you have changed gears here and are now speaking of Christ? Under this assuption, I give you an emphatic NOTHING. It means absolutely nothing as a "corporate body". As a universal body, under the blood of Jesus Christ it means salvation for all received, only once required. The debt was pais at calvary, never to be repeated. You see, I am not going to be taken in by your catechistically indoctrinated terms.

My, my, you sure do jump back and forth don't you? Am I correct to assume yet again you are speaking of the Holy of Holies as under the old covenant again?

Your answer:

Hebrews 10:4
For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
10:11
And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
10:12
But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

You don't!

The same thing he had to do with question 2

recrucify Christ on the cross in his blasphemous showing to others that he and they would like to be cannibals. Your priests, are NOT high priests under an old covenant.

You mean nuptial I assume? The only conclusion I can come up with, according to most marriages today, is "adulterous".

I do not have the time nor the inclination to go into this exhaustive explanation. I simply direct anyone to the study of Judaism for this answer.

You have shown yourself yet again with these questions. And so yet I answer you, "Hey Ed, Judaism is wrong for today too! If you think comparison of catholicism and Judaism is correct, think again. And not only that, but why would you want to compare your religion to another that has ended covenantally?

Yet again.......

Oh, and I still doubt I will "run to a parish" except to preach to, and warn those, who arent too far gone, and show them that their religion is an heretical, blasphemous, entity that is going to send a lot of people to Hell.

Spout your poison elsewhere you viper, it is not wanted here any longer.

You alone have been proven wrong, I don't have a clue to whom yo uare referring to when you say

I would not equate someone not desiring to listen to your lies to someone who "folds". The only one speaking nonsense in a blasphemous way is you.

Go back to your little house and present your "best" to the Lord, and see if He doesn't find you lacking. Your ceremony will bury you. You think your ceremonies, presentations, catechisms, and liturgies will save you. You don't believe in Jesus Christ, you believe in your Hail Mary's and Father Joseph's for atonement from sin. Your dead works will eat you as a worm eats a cankerous sore.

Speaking of running, where have you been lately?

Jim

Defensdeiforduoditty.....or whatever your name is,,, oh yeah......Ed.

Just couldn't resist a little ad hominum, eh? Well, that's okay. I understand the mindset.

Did you ever wonder why your answers were never answered? Because we understand that we cannot make a blind man see, that is Jesus Christs' job.

I know. That's why I really should cut you guys some slack rather than be so mean to people who are spiritually blind and uneducated. And arrogant about it, too.

So, yet again, I will play your silly game, and answer you according to your folly.

So my asking questions from scripture is folly, eh? Very interesting.

Quote:

1. What one function did the high priest do once a year that no other person on earth could do?

Enter into the Holy of Holies.

Very good, Jim.

Quote:

2. What was the meaning of this ceremony?

First of all, the entering in into the Holy of Holies was not the entire ceremony, I can only assume you are referring to this specific part of the entire ceremony. The high priest sprinkled the blood sacrifice upon the mercy seat of the ark of the covenant, needing constant repetition, because it was never fully finished "once and for all".

Wrong. The meaning of the ceremony was that it was done once a year for the nation of Israel as a corporate body. It was not done for personal sins. YOM KIPPUR was done every year by the high priest as mentioned in Hebrews 9 & 10. Only the high priest could do this. The sins of individuals were not covered at all by this, but were taken care of by the daily offerings of the Levitical priesthood

Quote:

3. When it says that this offering is offered "once and forever," what does that mean for the Church as a corporate body?

Again, because of the continuity disparity, I can only assume you have changed gears here and are now speaking of Christ? Under this assuption, I give you an emphatic NOTHING. It means absolutely nothing as a "corporate body". As a universal body, under the blood of Jesus Christ it means salvation for all received, only once required. The debt was pais at calvary, never to be repeated. You see, I am not going to be taken in by your catechistically indoctrinated terms.

Wrong. The Church is a covenantal body. In the Old Covenant, the Church, which was the Jewish Theocratic Nation (Psalms 22:22) had its covenant renewed once a year by the ritual of YOM KIPPUR. In the New Covenant, which operates in just the same manner as the Old Covenant, since both are covenants the high priest of the New Covenant therefore can only do the same job as the high priest of the Old Covenant -- offer YOM KIPPUR. The clue we have to this is in Hebrews 9 and 10 where it makes the comparison between the high priesthood of the Old Covenant and the Great High Priest of the New Covenant. In this comparison, it talks about the difference between the once a year offering of the Old Covenant (YOM KIPPUR) and the once and forever and done YOM KIPPUR of the New Covenant which Christ eternally offers before the Father in the "tabernacle made without hands" Go read Hebrews 9 and 10 (rather than spending time calling me names) and you will see this. Of course, you probably don't care, but there it is anyway.

Quote:

4. Why could this ceremony not be for our personal sins?

My, my, you sure do jump back and forth don't you? Am I correct to assume yet again you are speaking of the Holy of Holies as under the old covenant again?

Your answer:

Hebrews 10:4
For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
10:11
And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
10:12
But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

Wrong again. You are making a real art form out of being wrong, you know? The verses you quote from Hebrews 10 (which, BTW, you have jerked out of context) are speaking of the YEARLY sacrifice of YOM KIPPUR. Remember CONTEXT, Jim?

Nice job pulling that out of context to try to prove your wrong point. Heb. 10: 3 makes is abundantly clear that it is YOM KIPPUR which is being discussed in this whole chapter. See the words "every year?" In other words, the yearly sacrifice of YOM KIPPUR, not the daily sacrifice for personal sins.

It is saying in verse 4 that sins could not be taken away corporately so that mankind could be reunited to God and in relationship with Him.

Why is that important?

Because without the sins of the world being taken away, no one could get to heaven. The best the righteous could do was to go and wait in Paradise, the same Paradise that Christ descended into after His death to free these captives and lead them to the Father.

This is why "private interpretation" of the scriptures is a real bad idea. People like you read, jump to conclusions without sufficient study, and then make dogmatic pronouncements which are completely detached from reality

Quote:

5. How do we get forgiveness of sins in a covenantal relationship?

You don't!

You are so silly!! We are in the New Covenant of Christ's Blood and you say we don't get forgiveness of sins in that Covenant? Would you care to elaborate on your foolish little statement before I give you the answer?

Quote:

6. What does the high priest have to do with question # 5?

The same thing he had to do with question 2.

Correct!!! The high priest has NOTHING to do with the forgiveness of personal sins. That responsibility was left to the Levitical priesthood who offered daily sacrifices for sins. I am trying to show your poor blinded little eyes that God established two differenct classes of priesthood in the kingdom -- one for individual sins and one for corporate sins. Why don't you see that? Could it be that you are unfamiliar with Jewish ritual, which is the foundation of the Christain worship paradigm? I bet it is

Quote:

7. What does the priest offering the Mass do in a covenantal paradigm?

recrucify Christ on the cross in his blasphemous showing to others that he and they would like to be cannibals. Your priests, are NOT high priests under an old covenant.

Wrong again. Awwwwwwwwwwwww....yer not gonna git any of those fabulous prizes being offered today!!

Anyhow, we see that in the transistion from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant, God contiinues the office of the high priest in the person of the eternal Great High Priest, the Lord Jesus Christ. He also continues the offices of the Levitical priesthood in the persons of the Apostles when He gives them the authority to loose and bind men's sins. The apostles were the first bishops in the Church, and as such, they alone administered the hearing of the Sacrament of Confession. But as the Church rapidly grew, the bishops couldn't get to the parishes fast enough, so they ordained a class of priests who act in their authority to hear and forgive sins.

In the Old Covenant, the priest was brought a sacrificial animal.

In the New Covenant, we bring the Lamb of God.

In the Old Covenant, the animal was slain and eaten by the sinner after the sinner had confessed over that animal.

In the New Covenant, the timeless sacrifice of Christ is brought to the altar and made present there for sinners. After the sinner confesses his/her sins, he/she eats the Lamb of God and recieves forgiveness of his/her sins.

This also renews our personal covenant with God through Christ, since any sin is a severing of that covenantal relationship.

Christ is not re-crucified. The crucifixion is a timeless reality which is brought to earth and re-presented in time. Revelations tells us that the Lamb of God was "slain before the foundation of the world" meaning that in God's timeless eternity, in a mystery we do not understand, that sacrifice simply IS.

Quote:

8. How does the Mass correspond to the nupital bed of marriage?

You mean nuptial I assume? The only conclusion I can come up with, according to most marriages today, is "adulterous".

You really don' t "git it", do you?

A covenant is a love/union between two people. The Holy Scriptures show us that marriage is the ultimate expression of a covenantal relationship ( Ezek. 16: 8 ).

Our union with Christ is compared with marriage, and in eternity, we will experience this union in a way which is beyond our understanding. It will be, however, a becoming "one flesh" with Him. As such, the nuptial bed (yeah, I spelled it wrong-so shoot me) is the reality of the "one flesh" experience that the marriage certificate only speaks of.

In like manner, our faith in Christ is the certificate of our union with Him, but the Eucharist is where we really DO become one flesh with Him as His flesh enters our being and constantly brings forth new life (the "new man" in Christ), renewing us, forgiving our sins, and renewing our covenant with Him.

The Eucharist therefore is an eschaton event -- that is, it is the bringing to earth that experience of oneness with Him which will be the summa bonum of eternity for all believers. Our union begins in reality right now with the Eucharist. Yet, as real as it is, it is but a tiny foretaste of the rea and substantial union we will have with Him forever. That is why we are called "the Bride of Christ" and that is why the nuptial bed is the appropriate analogy for the Eucharist.

And BTW -- since the Eucharist is the nuptial bed, what kind of bride is it that refuses to become "one flesh" with her "beloved?" What kind of bride instead goes to another bed and beds another man, such as you do in the Protestant disgrace called "the Lord's Supper" which has not Christ in it?

Quote:

9. Interpret Hebrews 8:5 and Heb. 9: 23 - 24 and show how the Mass corresponds to the Jewish Passover.

10. How is the Passover Sedar different from the Yom Kippur ceremony?

I do not have the time nor the inclination to go into this exhaustive explanation. I simply direct anyone to the study of Judaism for this answer.

You have shown yourself yet again with these questions. And so yet I answer you, "Hey Ed, Judaism is wrong for today too! If you think comparison of catholicism and Judaism is correct, think again. And not only that, but why would you want to compare your religion to another that has ended covenantally?

Wrong once more. Nope....no prizes for you today.

The religion which began with the death of Jesus on the Cross was not Christianity. It was Judaism fulfilled. All of the rituals of Judaism which pointed to Christ were fulfilled by Him and continued in fulfillment in Him.

For instance, we see Jesus fulfilling the Passover in becoming the Passover Lamb, and then, just as in the Old Covenant Passover, He hands the bread and wine to the apostles and says "This IS my Body. This IS my Blood". He does not say "No more Passover, boys. I got something new for ya"

No....He continues it, but in a different form and in fulfillment. That is what the Eucharistic Supper is -- it is the fulfilled Passover. That was why I asked questions 9 and 10. You don't seem to understand this concept. You think Christianity is some sort of different religion. It is NOT! It is Judaism fulfilled. It is covenantal just as Judaism was.

Yet again.......

Oh, and I still doubt I will "run to a praish" except to preach to those who arent too far gone, and show them that their religion is an heretical, blasphemous, entity that is going to send a lot of people to Hell.

Spout your poison elsewhere you viper, it is not wanted here any longer.

You alone have been proven wrong, I don't have a clue to whom yo uare referring to when you say

Quote:

But I doubt I'll hear as much as a whimper from you.....after all, one of you already folded when I posted answers to this nonsense.

I would not equate someone not desiring to listen to your lies to someone who "folds". The only one speaking nonsense in a blasphemous way is you.

Lies are easy to refute. Where is the refutation of my "lies". George ran -- pure an simple.

And I continue to give you answers from the scriptures. Now show me where what I have said is wrong regarding the high priesthood and the nature of what one does.

Go back to your little house and present your "best" to the Lord, and see if He doesn't find you lacking. Your ceremony will bury you. You think your ceremonies, presentations, catechisms, and liturgies will save you. You don't believe in Jesus Christ, you believe in your Hail Mary's and Father Joseph's for atonement from sin. Your dead works will eat you as a worm eats a cankerous sore.

No, I do not trust in "Hail Mary's" to save my soul. That is yet another distortion of the Catholic Faith which you have bought into. The Catholic Faith is the practical outworking of faith in Christ and what He said. It is the definition of the New Covenant which has been worked out over years. Our trust is in God's mercy to us, through Jesus Christ His Son, by the work He did on the Cross for us. You can believe it or not.

You have left the Church our Lord set on earth as the "pillar and foundation of truth" and have joined a man made institution based on wretched hermeneutics, lies, distortions of the Church, and false witness against Catholics.

That is not a good place to be.

Speaking of running, where have you been lately?

I have been around. Just not much going on at this board until recently

If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, smells like a duck, will it bark?

I will quote you instead boldfacing your comments. Boldfacing indicates importance, which none of your statements contains.

Anyhow, arrogance is your forte, so what is your excuse? And if calling someone back what you have already been called isn't childish what is?

No your foolish questions having ulterior motives is folly you fool.

Again you are showing your stupidity. What I stated was not wrong. You proved that by answering the statement with an answer that had NOTHING to do with my answer above. Nowhere in my statement above did I refute the fact that the ceremony was done once a year. So your assertion of what you have said as a basis for refutation of my above statement is pure foolishness. If you are going to argue something, then don't change the subject.

And yet he does it again. Quit comparing apples to oranges. And as for calling names? Why should I not call you what you are?

Being wrong in your eyes is no offense to me. Being justified and sanctified by Christ is important, but you wouldn't know what that was, would you?

I am well aware the verses I quoted were referring to Yom Kipper you fool. I was answering your question, or have you become so disparate with in yourself you cannot even remember that? Maybe you ought to slow down and give your mind a chance to rest and take it one at a time? This multiplicity seems a little too much for you.

Stop changing gears then in your own mind and identify the covenant to which are referring. If you are talking about O.T. and "Yom Kippur" and other O.T. ceremonies and covenant, and then the very next sentence you use the term "covenant", then explain yourself. We obviously do have forgiveness of sins under the blood covenant of Jesus Christ, that ENDED the OLD COVENANT!

WRONG!!!!!! The high priest had nothing. Past tense. You are the one who is blind, still proclaiming the ceremonial bondage under the old covenant! Just look at the pomp and circumstance of the catholic mass and liturgies!

The prizes you have to offer I would gladly decline anyhow.

Yes, that is the problem....you bring Him again, and again, and again......

You don't believe Christ died(past tense) once and for all. Every time you believe you are drinking His blood, you cannibal, you recrucify Christ in your own mind.

I am not even going to dignify this blasphemy with a response.

No I do not. Thank the Lord Jesus Christ for that. I will never "git" your indoctrination into blasphemy.

The bride of Christ will be taken at the rapture. He is the groomsman awaiting His Bride when the Father says "Go". Leave the flesh out of it you blasphemer.

If it is the blood of Christ, can you please tell me what it tastes like? Or are you all too drunk at that point to describe it? Have you ever drank blood before? Do you know what tastes like? You fool.

And yet you continue the sacrifice in your minds by the Eucharist. It is very ironic how you completely dismissed your very argument here. If it is fulfilled, then why do you continue the sacrifice(fulfillment) in your Eucharist again, and again, and again......

George didn't run you fool, he just got tired yof your blasphemy.

No you don't. Your answers proceed from your own wicked twisting of the scriptures.

Then why do you say them? Let's see what the bible says about vain repetitions:

Matt. 6:7
But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

The catholic faith cannot do anything but physical and logical interpretation of any and all words said in their own bible. There is no guidance by the Holy Spirit, therefore no revelation of scripture, so it is left up to man and his best interpretation of it to figure it out. Very sad, very sad indeed.

If that's not the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is.

You have made the wroship of the true and living God a joke with your vain repetitious prayers, gold idols adorning your "cathedrals", satanic symbols representing your black hearts, the only pillar you can imagine is a stone one idolized in your mind because you can never understand the true and living God.

I agree, you should leave there.