Posted on 11/18/2017 5:44:19 PM PST by marshmallow
Your position doesn’t square with Rev-4:3 among other NT passages. A body with many different members does not involve everyone being the same.
.
>> “Jesus says come unto him...Not a priest who claims to be him...Not a wafer the priest claims is Jesus...And not Jesus’ mother...Go straight to Jesus.” <<
Yep, that puts them out of their trillion dollar a year scam!
They won’t give up easy though!
.
I Corinthians 11:27 doesn’t sound like its talking about a meal at Subway.
.
My position squares with the recorded words of Yeshua as recorded by the Cohen Matthew (the only literate disciple) who recorded it in their native hebrew tongue.
Squirm all you wish, but your flawed contortion of the word will not stand when we stand face to face, and know as we are known. (1Corinthians 13:12)
.
Calling Matthew a Cohen when he is recorded as being a Levite shows a rather low level of literacy on your part, It squares with recognizing Matthew as the only literate disciple and then citing Paul.
That said, the quality of the defenders that his New Zealand eminence has attracted speaks to the quality of his position.
1Cor 11:24
And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
From verse 26 onward they are the words of a man, not words that can be found being said by yeshua anywhere in the scriptures.
He was speaking to his disciples about their every day meals.
The low level of literacy is yours alone! The original Gospel of Mathew written in his native tongue made it plain that he was a cohen. Paul's words in ver. 24 were taken therefrom. subsequent verbiage is of questionable origin. .
Please give me chapter and verse for the evidence in the original that he was a Cohen. Assuming that you are working from Shem Tov I’ll look it up when I get to the office tomorrow. If you aren’t working from Shem Tov, I look forward to learning what you are working from.
The old Catholic Encyclopedia informs,
The Gospel has been for many centuries in East and West the privilege of the deacon. This was not always the case. At first a reader (anagnostes, lector) read all the lessons. We have seen a case of this in the story of St. Cyprian and Aurelian (see above). St. Jerome (died 420) speaks of the deacon as reader of the Gospel (Ep. cxlvii, n. 6), but the practice was not yet uniform in all churches. - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06659a.htm
Today regarding proclaiming the Gospel reading at a liturgical celebration, according to the USCCB,
In the absence of a priest or deacon, several of the liturgical books make provisions for a lay minister to proclaim the Gospel, most notably Sunday Celebrations in the Absence of a Priest and the Book of Blessings. - http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/order-of-mass/liturgy-of-the-word/proclamation-of-the-gospel-by-the-laity.cfm
Of course, without a Catholic priest RCs can have no Eucharist, even though you will never see them described conducting the Lord's supper in the inspired record (Acts - Revelation) of what the church did and how they understood the gospels, or charged with this as being a unique and or primary function, nor preaching the Lord's supper as the means of regeneration, that of obtaining spiritual life. .
Which is in contrast to presbuteros/episkopeos (same persons) being charged with preaching the word as their primary active function, (2Tim. 4:2) ) feeding the flock thereby. (Acts 20:28) believing the gospel being the means of regeneration, of obtaining spiritual life (Acts 10:43; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13) and being nourished (1Tim. 4:6) and built up (Acts 20:32) for the word, is what is called spiritual food, "milk" (1Co. 3:22; 1Pt. 1:22) and "meat," (Heb. 5:12-14
Which is just one of the many Catholic distinctives not seen in the inspired record of what the church did and how they understood the gospels,
I think he is referring to the differences btwn the Old "covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt," (Hebrews 8:9) and the New, "better" covenant under Christ. And in which their is no supreme high priest or extended hierarchial system, but the Lord alone is set forth as the High Priest, and after the apostles they only ordained clergy were presbuteros/episkopeos (same persons) and deacons.
Thus the only command/exhortation to regular confession of sins is toward each other in general, (Ja. 5:16-20) as all believers are called to sacrifice (Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9) and all constitute the only priesthood (hieráteuma) in the NT church, that of all believers, (1Pt. 2:5,9; Re 1:6; 5:10; 20:6).
My last post provides more meat to chew on, by the grace of God.
And Chrysostom attached considerable importance to the reading of Scripture on the part of the laity and denounced the error that it was to be permitted only to monks and priests (De Lazaro concio, iii, MPG, xlviii, 992; Hom. ii in Matt., MPG, lvii, 30, NPNF, 2d ser., x, 13). He insisted upon access being given to the entire Bible, or at least to the New Testament (Hom. ix in Col., MPG, lxii, 361, NPNF, xiii, 301). The women also, who were always at home, were diligently to read the Bible (Hom. xxxv on Gen. xii, MPG, liii, 323). Jerome recommended the reading and studying of Scripture on the part of the women (Epist., cxxviii, 3, MPL, xxii, 1098, NPNF, 2d ser., vi, 259; Epist., lxxix, 9, MPG, xxii, 730-731, NPNF, 2d ser., vi, 167). This was the case even without a printing press and less literacy in general. The translations of the Bible, Augustine considered a blessed means of propagating the Word of God among the nations (De doctr. christ., ii, 5, NPNF, 1st ser., ii, 536); Gregory I recommended the reading of the Bible without placing any limitations on it (Hom. iii in Ezek., MPL, lxxvi, 968). — New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia
How much different history could have been if that had been the norm and reality thru all the centuries, but the reality is that Rome did in fact hinder personal Bible reading , thinking free access did more harm than good. And unlike the Puritans.required schooling in order that the laity may able to read Scripture was not a manifest priority.
Blame the person who said do this. By our understanding it is not a different sacrifice but a participation in the same sacrifice.
***
Is that Catholic or Orthodox you’re referring to with that statement?
Thanks for your link.
I quote from it:
In general, the Church has always allowed the reading of the Bible in the vernacular, if it was desirable for the spiritual needs of her children; she has forbidden it only when it was almost certain to cause serious spiritual harm.
Examples are given of situations of the circumstances where serious spiritual harm was a concern, such as when translations are faulty. Do you think it good for people to read faulty translations of Scripture, and to mistake the whims of the translator for God’s revelation?
I’m thinking particularly of Catholic teaching most clearly articulated by Pius XII, but I have little doubt that we are united in belief with our Orthodox brothers on this point.
It took you 12 minutes to come up with a retort that he was indeed a Cohen if you look at the Hebrew, and after being asked to put out chapter and verse of the Hebrew, we’re up to four hours of crickets. Is it there in Shem Tov, in which case give me chapter and verse and I’ll see it, or do you have some alternate version from a gnostic source—perhaps you are consulting with gold tablets unearthed but soon to be lost from upstate New York?
LOL, you are correct sir. That is precisely why I am an ex Catholic myself. I was such a totally rebellious guy, that when the priests and nuns told me I couldn’t read the Bible for myself, without a priest to interpret it for me, the first thing I did, was get a Bible and read it and think for myself. I was a rebellious dude. 😀😆😄👍
.
Waste of time to deal with a sarcastic popingjay who has zero interest in reality.
.
the first thing I did, was get a Bible and read it and think for myself.
Hence your screen name? Building something yourself not in the Bible based upon what can be found in the Bible (Mark only has 16 chapters)....
Waste of time to deal with a sarcastic popingjay who has zero interest in reality.
You claim you have a copy of Matthew in the original language that supports a claim that is not supported in the received Greek, but can’t be bothered to give chapter and verse to support the claim?
That I know and can easily consult Shem Tov ought to be sufficient to demonstrate that I am quite grounded in textual reality. I am acutely aware that the Fathers held (and indeed the Church teaches) that the Matthean original is not in Greek, but in his native language. As far as I am aware, no Christian after the fifth century presented any contact with this text in a tradition demonstrably independent of Shem Tov.
There may be evidence in Shem Tov pointing to your assertion. I have found a number of fascinating things in it that did not make it into the Greek. Giving chapter and verse for it is not that difficult, at least if you are following Howard’s critical edition.
The other two options are that you have access to some alternate manuscript tradition that I have missed during 20 + years of off and on research in this area, or that you mispoke and actually have nothing to substantiate your claim when pressed.
BTW—the upstate NY comments are an allusion to the ascribed discovery to the book of Mormon. They are modern gnostics. If there are a group of people running around with a hitherto unknown version of Matthew with no pedigree, I would put them into the same camp.
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.