Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Priesthood, Old and New (explained by a Baptist Sunday School and Bible study teacher)
Catholic Exchange ^ | June 15, 2009 | Sonja Corbitt

Posted on 06/15/2009 1:42:58 PM PDT by NYer

As a Baptist Sunday School and Bible study teacher, one of the questions that used to nag at me incessantly was this: Why, after such painstaking deliberation in dictating an institutional religion that pleased Him in the Old Testament and that was designed to lead the people to recognize the Messiah when He came, would God then introduce a system in the New Testament Church that was so completely unlike the one He established in the Old? There are innumerable examples of how ridiculous this complete “change” would be, but take the priesthood, for instance.

Priests were the officiators of worship whose main duties, those that set them apart from the “priesthood of the people” (Exodus 19:6), were to maintain the tabernacle sanctuary, offer sacrifices, and facilitate the peoples’ confession of sins through them. God Himself established this formal priesthood, stipulating everything about it in the Law of the Torah. The priests must be descendants of Aaron, the first priest selected by God Himself; their bodies must have no defect in them, because their persons and bodies were an offering to God (like the animals they would sacrifice on the altar); they must be dedicated in a special seven-day ceremony that involved bathing, oils, and sacrifices.

They were clad in special garments. They wore a “coat” woven from a single piece of linen without seam that symbolized spiritual integrity, wholeness and righteousness. The headpiece, called a miter, was made by God’s direction to look like a flower in bloom to illustrate the wearers’ spiritual health and bloom. The girdle, specified by God, was a belt worn around the waist to show that theirs was an office of service to the people.

While in active service to God in the tabernacle, and later at the temple, the priests were to have no marital relations with their spouses. This celibacy illustrated the inherent purity which the priest must embody. Along with offering sacrifices, they were to be the teachers of the people. This was not to prevent the people from learning, praying, or studying the Law on their own; it was simply to protect the people from error. They were also the office of authoritative judgment for the people, a way of justice for them.

This priesthood was so sacred that even the priests’ possible, probable and, later, actual, infidelity to God would not negate it. The people were instructed to officially hear and obey them due to the sanctity of their office, as it was a function of God’s grace rather than the priests’ merit. The priesthood was to be a perpetual institution (Exodus 40:15), as were the sacrifices they would offer Him.

”If this is true, where is the priesthood in the New Testament, after Christ?” I asked myself as a Baptist. It cannot simply be that members of the body of Christ were now “The Priesthood” as I had been taught through 1Peter 2:9 and the Book of Hebrews; not if the Old Testament is to be our example as the Scriptures so clearly say (Matthew 13:52). In the Old Testament, the people were also said to be a priesthood, though still not of the official, institutional office (Exodus 19:6), and St. Peter uses the same wording when he speaks of the “priesthood of the believer.” If the Old Testament is our example, there must also be a formal New Testament office of the priesthood in addition to the priesthood of the believer. The “fulfillment” of the Old Testament in Christ cannot, and would not, negate the perpetual and institutional nature of the office of the priesthood. He Himself said He came to fulfill it, that is to give it its proper orientation and meaning, not abolish it (Matthew 5:17-18).

This was one of the questions that bothered me the more I learned about the Old Testament example, especially after experiencing the epidemic rebellion, disunity, and church-splitting of the sole “priesthood of the believer” propounded in Protestant churches. Although the Scriptures are full of how consecrated and special they are to God, there is little respect for pastors’ authority or office in denominational churches anymore. A sign of the times, of course, but also a sign of a fundamental structural error (and appropriately of the exact nature of the original error) that is now making itself evident; for the perpetual, institutional priesthood was carried forth in obedience in and through the Catholic Church.

Everything about the Old Testament example, including the priesthood of the believer, is both fulfilled and perpetuated in Her, through Christ’s eternal sacrifice, just as the Scriptures teach. The sacrifices Catholic priests make are the single sacrifice pleasing to God: His only Son. This is the Sacrifice pictured and eternally being offered in the heavenly temple revealed to St. John in the Book of Revelation, the Sacrifice initiated and perpetuated by Christ Himself in the words “do this in remembrance of me,” this being the very thing Jesus was about to do — sacrifice Himself. Who obeys this command to the letter, offering and consuming the Blood of the new covenant and the Body which is broken for us, but the priesthood of the Catholic Church? Who officiates at this true and perpetual Sacrifice but the priesthood of the Catholic Church? Who maintains the sanctuary, offers the Sacrifice, and facilitates the peoples’ confession of sin? Who carries forth the descendants and celibacy of Christ’s priesthood with the consecration and the garments? Who administers the official and error-free, authoritative Teaching of Christ? Who but the priesthood of the Catholic Church?

The formal priesthood was to be an eternal sign of God’s wish and order that there be an institutional system in service to His precious people. As Catholics, we can rejoice and rest in the provision, Scriptural nature, and orthodoxy of our beloved formal priesthood. Let us confidently pray for vocations, while striving to meet our own obligation to holiness as part of the priesthood of the believer.


TOPICS: Catholic; History; Judaism; Worship
KEYWORDS: baptist; churchhistory; priesthood
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-189 next last

1 posted on 06/15/2009 1:42:58 PM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Salvation; narses; SMEDLEYBUTLER; redhead; Notwithstanding; nickcarraway; Romulus; ...

Great history lesson.


2 posted on 06/15/2009 1:43:35 PM PDT by NYer ("Run from places of sin as from a plague." - St. John Climacus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

ping


3 posted on 06/15/2009 1:47:04 PM PDT by GOP_Party_Animal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Sad.


4 posted on 06/15/2009 1:48:01 PM PDT by SandWMan (Even if you can't legislate morality, you can legislate morally.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Want to correct the title to “Former Baptist...”?

Isn’t that what you guys traffic in? Johnny Schmuckfodder used to be a Calvinist, but now, look, he is a Catholic. That proves the Vatican is right. We knew it, we knew it.

Please. Call a man that used to be a Catholic and ask him this question, “Is the sacerdotal system of Rome alive under the New Covenant?” Men like Luther would say, “Of course not. Just those that love Pharisiaism need it.”


5 posted on 06/15/2009 1:55:22 PM PDT by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dutchboy88

Thumbs up. ;)


6 posted on 06/15/2009 1:57:44 PM PDT by SandWMan (Even if you can't legislate morality, you can legislate morally.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Dutchboy88

You wrote:

“Please. Call a man that used to be a Catholic and ask him this question, “Is the sacerdotal system of Rome alive under the New Covenant?” Men like Luther would say, “Of course not. Just those that love Pharisiaism need it.”

Luther might. But those former Catholics who became Orthodox or Anglican would disagree with you.


7 posted on 06/15/2009 2:13:06 PM PDT by vladimir998 (Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. St. Jerome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

See post for their continuing problem.


8 posted on 06/15/2009 2:15:08 PM PDT by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: NYer
1 Peter 2:9 - But ye [are] a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:(10) Which in time past [were] not a people, but [are] now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

Can scripture playe a role?
9 posted on 06/15/2009 2:23:09 PM PDT by AD from SpringBay (We deserve the government we allow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
The priesthood was to be a perpetual institution (Exodus 40:15), as were the sacrifices they would offer Him

Apparently the author has not realized we have changed from a dispensation of law to a dispensation of grace. Things truly changed between the Old and New Testament, and the concept of priesthood is one of them. The Old Testament priest had to continually offer sacrifices for the sins of the people, because animal sacrifices were insuficient. In the 8th chapter of Hebrews, Paul calls the old covenant "obsolete, old, ready to vanish away". Later on, in the 10th chapter, he says that "we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all". What part of "once for all" is so hard to understand? We have a High Priest that "after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God" (Heb. 10:12). This is a new covenant, different from the old one, and therefore there's no need for priests, sacrifices...

10 posted on 06/15/2009 2:24:03 PM PDT by Former Fetus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
The main duty of a priest, in the old testament, was to offer a blood sacrifice to G*d to TRY to atone for the sins of people, in the personal as well as the public sense.
Personal, as in the person, public, as in the nation of Israel.

The need for that was abolished by the sacrifice of Christ.

The sacrament, in the baptist church (at least mine), is not given by laymen but by one of the deacons or pastors.

I have but one confessor to the Father. That is Christ, not another imperfect human.

11 posted on 06/15/2009 2:24:05 PM PDT by Just another Joe (Warning: FReeping can be addictive and helpful to your mental health)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

**As Catholics, we can rejoice and rest in the provision, Scriptural nature, and orthodoxy of our beloved formal priesthood. Let us confidently pray for vocations, while striving to meet our own obligation to holiness as part of the priesthood of the believer.**

Sounds like this person (former Baptist) became a Catholic.

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0geur7MuzZKoTMAG5Kl87UF?p=Sonja+Corbitt+Catholic&fr=sfp&fr2=&iscqry=


12 posted on 06/15/2009 2:24:45 PM PDT by Salvation (With God all things are possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dutchboy88
Johnny Schmuckfodder used to be a Calvinist, but now, look, he is a Catholic.

Very well put, sir.

I'd also add that the doctrine of praying to dead people (like, say, Mary) isn't sanctioned anywhere in the Old Testament.

13 posted on 06/15/2009 2:25:19 PM PDT by Gurn (Remember Mountain Meadows.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Dutchboy88

What post?


14 posted on 06/15/2009 2:31:28 PM PDT by vladimir998 (Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. St. Jerome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Former Fetus

The whole point why we don’t need sacrifices today is that the OT sacrifices were a foreshadowing of Christ, who still had yet to come, to be the sacrifice for ALL. Those animal sacrifices were based on the equity of Christ’s then-future sacrifice for mankind.

As Christ paid once and for all, we no longer need animal sacrifice, THE ONE REAL SACRIFICE those animal sacrifices represented, has been paid. No need anymore to unecessarily sacrifice animals.


15 posted on 06/15/2009 2:36:21 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Gurn

Well, we didn’t have saints in the Old Testament, did we?

I am a convert to Catholicism from Methodism. The reason I converted was my belief that the Catholic Church is closest to the Church Christ founded.

A study of the early Church shows many examples of the mass, confession, priests, etc.

I am not going to knock Protestants, but I do wonder how those who think their way is the correct one explain the 1500 years of Catholicism prior to the Reformation. Were all of those people wrong? Were they not saved?


16 posted on 06/15/2009 2:41:25 PM PDT by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

I agree. Neither do we need priests. When the veil of the temple was broken (Matt. 27:51), it broke from top to bottom because it was God Himself who removed the barrier between God and man. We don’t need priests, we don’t need intercessors other than Jesus Christ. When the one, perfect sacrifice was offered, it put an end to the sacrificial system and that included the temple, priests... Remember, it was the author of the article, not me, who associated animal sacrifices and priesthood. I just said that, just as the former was abolished at the Cross, so was the later!


17 posted on 06/15/2009 2:44:17 PM PDT by Former Fetus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe

There are no celibate priests, popes, or nuns in the New Testemant. That’s why I’m not a Catholic.


18 posted on 06/15/2009 2:48:59 PM PDT by deepseaangler (deepseaangler)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
Was the selling of Induldgences also sanctioned by the Old Testament?

As a follow-up, was the Inquisition?

Finally, would you like to make a comparison as to whether Catholic tradition vs. Protestant doctrine has more of a Biblical basis?

PS: Where can I find the Biblical basis for a celibate priesthood? Is it the Old, or New Testament? I just find it odd that a Catholic uses Holy Scripture as a basis for justifying his denomination's doctrine; when I've engaged in theological debates with Roman Catholics, I'm always told that "church tradition" counts as much as Biblical authority.

19 posted on 06/15/2009 2:51:05 PM PDT by Gurn (Remember Mountain Meadows.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Dutchboy88

Jesus said, “Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.” (Matthew 23:9)

1 Timothy 2:5 says, “For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.”

The Old Testament priesthood was reserved for descendants of Levi. The old covenant has been superseded.

We have direct access to the Father through His Son. We no longer need to go through other men to gain access to God. That is what our precious Savior accomplished on the cross.

Thanks for letting me chime in—as a former Catholic, I am grateful that we can rely on the authority and inerrancy of Scripture—God’s very word—rather than on the traditions and words of men.


20 posted on 06/15/2009 2:52:33 PM PDT by seanmerc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: seanmerc

I agree with you on every thing you wrote. I was raised Baptist and will never call another man “Father”.


21 posted on 06/15/2009 3:09:32 PM PDT by seemoAR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Dutchboy88
jDoes this strike you as a “cult”?

A cult claims that they are the true cult and have the true priesthood, and without the true cult and its ordinances and ceremonies, you will be damned. Leave the cult and you will abandon your salvation.

Geeze! Talk about psychologically and spiritually abusive! Instead of Christ being our salvation it is the cult.

22 posted on 06/15/2009 3:10:32 PM PDT by wintertime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
Well, we didn’t have saints in the Old Testament, did we?

Actually we did! This is the first usage of the word “Saints” in the entire Bible: (Deu 33:1-3 KJV) And this is the blessing, wherewith Moses the man of God blessed the children of Israel before his death. {2} And he said, The LORD came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them. {3} Yea, he loved the people; all his saints are in thy hand: and they sat down at thy feet; every one shall receive of thy words.

The Bible calls 'saints" to all believers, whether they lived before or after Christ. Now, if you are thinking on "Catholic-style" saints, you would be right, there ain'!

Can you please show me some biblical examples of confession, priests... in the early Church? As a Sunday school teacher I would be very interested to have a look at them. I love it when I can learn something new!

23 posted on 06/15/2009 3:16:17 PM PDT by Former Fetus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: deepseaangler

Jesus is the High Priest and He was celibate.

He’s in your New Testament, right?


24 posted on 06/15/2009 3:16:30 PM PDT by vladimir998 (Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. St. Jerome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: seemoAR

You wrote:

“I was raised Baptist and will never call another man “Father”.”

What did you call your Dad?


25 posted on 06/15/2009 3:18:26 PM PDT by vladimir998 (Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. St. Jerome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

Dad?


26 posted on 06/15/2009 3:23:37 PM PDT by Former Fetus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: seanmerc

You wrote:

“Jesus said, “Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.” (Matthew 23:9)”

Okay, so what did you call your Dad?

“Thanks for letting me chime in—as a former Catholic, I am grateful that we can rely on the authority and inerrancy of Scripture—God’s very word—rather than on the traditions and words of men.”

Okay, please tell me how you know the gospel of Matthew is inspired? I would like a verse that specifically mentions his gospel please. Also, please let me know what verse in Matthew tells you Matthew wrote that gospel. Thanks in advance.


27 posted on 06/15/2009 3:25:34 PM PDT by vladimir998 (Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. St. Jerome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Former Fetus

And what does “Dad” mean?


28 posted on 06/15/2009 3:26:22 PM PDT by vladimir998 (Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. St. Jerome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
Okay, please tell me how you know the gospel of Matthew is inspired?

2 Tim. 3:16. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness".

29 posted on 06/15/2009 3:29:37 PM PDT by Former Fetus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: seanmerc; Dr. Eckleburg; Petronski

This is the Gospel, my friend. Thank you for such a direct and profound statement of the truth. We are very grateful to God and happy for you that you have escaped the clutches of the Vatican.

Yes, indeed, once the blood was shed, we Gentiles who once were far off, were grafted in, and we have that direct access to the Father through His Son according to His grace, by faith. No longer needing other mediators, no longer needing ceremonies, no longer needing additional sacrifice. You have clearly set out the beauty of freedom in Christ, alone, as attested to in the innerrant Scriptures. Again, thanks.


30 posted on 06/15/2009 3:30:13 PM PDT by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
Jesus is the High Priest and He was celibate.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Is there a scripture that specifically states that Jesus was celibate, or are the scriptures merely silent on that point?

With regard to “high priest”, specifically where does it use that term with regard to Jesus?

Personally, if the scriptures are silent on a particular point then I will be as well, and I will refrain from specious speculation.

31 posted on 06/15/2009 3:31:44 PM PDT by wintertime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Former Fetus

You posted:

“2 Tim. 3:16. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”.”

I didn’t ask you to post a verse that said scripture was inspired. I asked you for a verse that said the gospel of MATTHEW was inspired. Can you even post a verse that shows that Matthew’s gospel is scripture? Can you post a single verse that shows Christians in the New Testament thought Matthew’s gospel was inspired? Can you post a single verse that shows Matthew was in fact the author of the gospel ascribed to him?

Can’t you post any verses at all for what you believe about Matthew or his gospel?


32 posted on 06/15/2009 3:32:37 PM PDT by vladimir998 (Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. St. Jerome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: wintertime

You wrote:

“Is there a scripture that specifically states that Jesus was celibate, or are the scriptures merely silent on that point?”

Do you have any verses that show He was married? Was St. Paul married?

“With regard to “high priest”, specifically where does it use that term with regard to Jesus?”

Who else offered Jesus to the Father? Was it not Jesus Himself? Aren’t you familiar with Hebrews 3:1?

“Personally, if the scriptures are silent on a particular point then I will be as well, and I will refrain from specious speculation.”

I make no speculation. Jesus was celibate. He could never have taken a wife.


33 posted on 06/15/2009 3:35:54 PM PDT by vladimir998 (Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. St. Jerome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

According to the Webster’s Dictionary, it means “father”. Notice, it does not say “Father”. You really don’t see the difference between calling your dad “father” or calling some one else “Father So-and-so”? I taught for one year at a Catholic high school, and I left (wasn’t fired, they tried to sue me to force me to return) among other things because of the way everybody looked at me when I called the priest who came once a week “mister” and “sir”. They thought I was being purposedly rude.


34 posted on 06/15/2009 3:37:50 PM PDT by Former Fetus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

Can you even post a verse that shows that Matthew’s gospel is NOT Scripture? If it is, it obviously is inspired. If it isn’t, why do you find it it your Catholic Bible?


35 posted on 06/15/2009 3:41:36 PM PDT by Former Fetus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

Daddy. ;0)


36 posted on 06/15/2009 3:41:46 PM PDT by seemoAR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: seanmerc

From one former-Catholic to another... praise the Lord!


37 posted on 06/15/2009 3:42:42 PM PDT by Former Fetus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

I make no speculation. Jesus was celibate. He could never have taken a wife.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Unless you can point to a scripture, then you are speculating.

Personally, I do not speculate. The scriptures are silent on this point. I do not know and will refrain from any speculation on Christ’s marital status.


38 posted on 06/15/2009 3:44:43 PM PDT by wintertime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: NYer

I sure am thankful that I was saved into the Body of Christ by the free gift of God’s grace, without works. I didnt have to earn my salvation, nor be bothered with the traditions of men.


39 posted on 06/15/2009 3:46:50 PM PDT by rightly_dividing (Eph.2:8,9 2nd Tim. 2:15,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Former Fetus

You wrote:

“According to the Webster’s Dictionary, it means “father”. Notice, it does not say “Father”.”

You think it’s in caps in the Greek mss.? So are you saying that you can call your Dad Dad, but you better not do it at the beginning of the sentence or else you’re in trouble with Jesus? Hilarious.

“You really don’t see the difference between calling your dad “father” or calling some one else “Father So-and-so”?”

Yes, I see the difference. I also see it doesn’t violate the scriptures. It just violates your own weird interpretation of them. http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9101dq.asp

http://www.catholic.com/library/Call_No_Man_Father.asp

“I taught for one year at a Catholic high school, and I left (wasn’t fired, they tried to sue me to force me to return) among other things because of the way everybody looked at me when I called the priest who came once a week “mister” and “sir”. They thought I was being purposedly rude.”

The school’s better off.


40 posted on 06/15/2009 3:47:20 PM PDT by vladimir998 (Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. St. Jerome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

I called my dad “dad.” The reference in Matthew is to calling someone on earth your father in a spiritual sense.

I know that Matthew’s gospel is inspired because it is part of the canon of Scripture, just as the gospels of Mark, Luke and John are.

Matthew didn’t write the gospel—God did. Matthew was just the human secretary that God used. Matthew wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 says, “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

If you have a problem with the gospel of Matthew, you’d be better off taking it up with God. It’s His word, not mine. I have no doubt of His ability to reveal that to you.

That’s my prayer—that the Lord would reveal Himself to you through His word. Hebrews 4:12 says, “For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” Isaiah 55:11 says, “So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth; it shall not return to Me void, but it shall accomplish what I please, and it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it.”

I am not afraid of anything you might learn or any conclusion you might come to by simply reading His word.


41 posted on 06/15/2009 3:49:16 PM PDT by seanmerc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: wintertime

You wrote:

“Unless you can point to a scripture, then you are speculating.”

Nope. Remember, you didn’t even know Christ was called high priest in Hebrews 3.

“Personally, I do not speculate. The scriptures are silent on this point. I do not know and will refrain from any speculation on Christ’s marital status.”

The scriptures are not silent. Christ NEVER MARRIED A WOMAN. His bride is the Church. IS this news to you like Christ being the high priest?

2 Corinthians 11:2-3

2 I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him.

John 3:29-30

29 The bride belongs to the bridegroom. The friend who attends the bridegroom waits and listens for him, and is full of joy when he hears the bridegroom’s voice. That joy is mine, and it is now complete. 30 He must become greater; I must become less.

Revelation 19:6-8

6 Then I heard what sounded like a great multitude, like the roar of rushing waters and like loud peals of thunder, shouting: “Hallelujah! For our Lord God Almighty reigns. 7 Let us rejoice and be glad and give him glory! For the wedding of the Lamb has come, and his bride has made herself ready. 8 Fine linen, bright and clean, was given her to wear.”

Ephesians 5:25-28

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.

Christ would never have more than one bride. His ONE bride is the Church. Period.


42 posted on 06/15/2009 3:57:20 PM PDT by vladimir998 (Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. St. Jerome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
I still haven't received an answer on the selling of induldgences; the praying to dead people; and the celibate priesthood.

Am I going to get one? Is there a Scriptural basis for any? Thanks in advance.

43 posted on 06/15/2009 3:59:20 PM PDT by Gurn (Remember Mountain Meadows.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

Paul was a member of the Sanhedrin, so yes, he was married—that was a requirement for Sanhedrin membership.

Mark 1:30 and Luke 4:38 tell us that Peter was married, also.

Hebrews 3:1: “Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Christ Jesus”

Hebrews 4:14-15: “Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.”

Hebrews 6:19-20: “This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which enters the Presence behind the veil, where the forerunner has entered for us, even Jesus, having become High Priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.”


44 posted on 06/15/2009 3:59:34 PM PDT by seanmerc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Good article.

Here is a more technical one on the topic of Catholic priesthood: THE PRIESTHOOD DEBATE

45 posted on 06/15/2009 3:59:52 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
You think it’s in caps in the Greek mss.? So are you saying that you can call your Dad Dad, but you better not do it at the beginning of the sentence or else you’re in trouble with Jesus? Hilarious

Excuse me, for assuming you had the sense to see the difference between "father" referring to your progenitor, or "Father" as a title for someone. If all you saw was a case of upper vs. lower case, you're hopeless.

your own weird interpretation of them

weird? as compared to what? Your interpretation?

The school’s better off

No, I am better off. I had a hard time walking every day into that building, with a statue of St. Francis staring at me, and a picture of John Paul II watching me walk to my classroom. I had never before really understood the commandment against graven images, but then it became painfully real. They were a burden to my soul, and I was jubilant the day I walked out of that building for good!

46 posted on 06/15/2009 4:00:23 PM PDT by Former Fetus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Thank you for posting this. A lovely analogy. It’s just a pity that so many people feel utterly compelled to rail against it. May God open their eyes to the truth.


47 posted on 06/15/2009 4:00:37 PM PDT by markomalley (Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: seanmerc
Paul was a member of the Sanhedrin, so yes, he was married

LOL. You should read the Holy Scripture every now and then.

48 posted on 06/15/2009 4:01:07 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: annalex

I read them every day. How about you?


49 posted on 06/15/2009 4:03:24 PM PDT by seanmerc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: seanmerc

You wrote:

“I called my dad “dad.” The reference in Matthew is to calling someone on earth your father in a spiritual sense.”

Really? Then why did St. Paul say he had children - and he wasn’t talking about those who got DNA from him?

“I know that Matthew’s gospel is inspired because it is part of the canon of Scripture, just as the gospels of Mark, Luke and John are.”

But where does scripture say that it is inspired? Are you admitting it doesn’t say it? Also, how do you know the other books are inspired? Who decided they are inspired? Where is the inspired table of contents of the Bible?

“Matthew didn’t write the gospel—God did. Matthew was just the human secretary that God used. Matthew wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.”

Again, how do you know that if the Bible no where mentions that Matthew wrote a gospel? Aren’t you then, by your own standards, following a tradition of men?

“2 Timothy 3:16-17 says, “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.””

Where is 2 Timothy do you see any books mentioned by name? How, for instance, do you know Enoch is not inspired? How do you know?

“If you have a problem with the gospel of Matthew, you’d be better off taking it up with God. It’s His word, not mine. I have no doubt of His ability to reveal that to you.”

He already did reveal it to me. What I am trying to figure out is where in the Bible He revealed it to YOU. Show me or admit that you’re just assuming it.

“That’s my prayer—that the Lord would reveal Himself to you through His word.”

Your prayer was answered - many years ago. That’s why I am not a Protestant.

“Hebrews 4:12 says, “For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” Isaiah 55:11 says, “So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth; it shall not return to Me void, but it shall accomplish what I please, and it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it.””

Again, how do you know Hebrews is inspired?

“I am not afraid of anything you might learn or any conclusion you might come to by simply reading His word.”

Neither am I. Again, I’m not a Protestant. God is the reason why.


50 posted on 06/15/2009 4:04:42 PM PDT by vladimir998 (Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. St. Jerome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-189 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson