I would agree with that in that God who is outside of time and dimensions. But, there is no biblical foundation for an eternal sacrifice.
This is your first error. There is no biblical foundation for a need for a biblical foundation. The Catholic Church verifies the authenticity of the Scriptures. Not the other way around.
These all can't take place at the same "moment" if that "moment" is not defined by time. By His definition of the sacrifices, He dictates demands a timeline. And that means it must be (must have been) within creation and not suspended somewhere outside of creation. And, there are no "moments" outside of time - there can't be an "eternal moment" because time and so, moments don't occur if time does not exist. It seems to be to be an oxymoron at best.
Not an oxymoron, a paradox. God enjoys giving us paradoxes. God generates himself into man, a virgin birth, victory through apparent defeat, God dying, Time and Eternity meet at the Cross.
But, scripture itself shows this to have occured, once and for all. The tenses of the verbs used show this to be the case and elimates what you are trying to say.
No. It doesn't eliminate what I'm saying. The event happened roughly 1976 years ago. But that event is brought to the present at Mass. Eternity is opened up in time at the Mass. The supernatural is penetrating the natural.
on the tenses:
Heb 1:3 who being(P) the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding(P) all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged(A) our sins, sat down (A) at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
The Douay-Rheims is in the present tense: 3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the figure of his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power, making purgation of sins, sitteth on the right hand of the majesty on high.
This shows He is continually being and upholding, but one time action of purged and sat down.
That doesn't fit logically since an infinite cannot literally "sit" since he is infinite he has no motion.
10:12 But this Man, after He had offered (A) one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from that time waiting (P) till His enemies are made (A)His footstool.
The Douay-Rheims: 12 But this man offering one sacrifice for sins, for ever sitteth on the right hand of God, 13 From henceforth expecting, until his enemies be made his footstool. 14 For by one oblation he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. 15 And the Holy Ghost also doth testify this to us. For after that he said:
16 And this is the testament which I will make unto them after those days, saith the Lord. I will give my laws in their hearts, and on their minds will I write them: 17 And their sins and iniquities I will remember no more. 18 Now where there is a remission of these, there is no more an oblation for sin. 19 Having therefore, brethren, a confidence in the entering into the holies by the blood of Christ; 20 A new and living way which he hath dedicated for us through the veil, that is to say, his flesh,
Mark 16:19 So then, after the Lord had spoken (A) to them, He was received (A) up into heaven, and sat down (A) down at the right hand of God.
The Ascension is not a part of the Sacrifice on Calvary. It is not part of that Eternal moment brought forth in the Mass. It is a historical event.
1 John 4: 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses (P) that Jesus Christ has come (PP) in the flesh is (P) of God.
The Douay-Rheims: 2 By this is the spirit of God known. Every spirit which confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God:
Therefore, unless you can show why these uses of tenses, the details in the sacrifice, etc can support your theory,
Matt 28: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and BEHOLD I AM WITH YOU ALL DAYS, even to the consummation of the world.
then it appears that the Word refutes what you are trying to say.
My copy of the Word does no such thing. That's the trouble with relying too heavily on Sola Scriptura. Unless you have the assurance of the Church, you can never be sure whether your edition is reliable or not. And going to earlier manuscripts also becomes a guessing game since no originals exist.
That is circular logic. For what "validates" the existence of the church? Scripture. You can't have it both ways. I am not here to argue sola scriptura with you. That is not my intent. You have to decide yourself to trust in man or in God - who is the Word.
I think you misunderstood and I realize that I was not clear enough in my post. The tenses that I gave are the tenses in the original language - the Greek tenses. English only has 3 tenses - past, present and future, but the Greek has a few more - that was what I was giving. So your posting another version really did nothing to refute the scriptures given. Neither does your comment about not having the original manuscripts. By comparing all the copies, having an idea of what level they are from the original and with as many of the old manuscripts that they have, there is really relatively little discrepancy. So by extrapolation we really have a reliabe "original" manuscript. So then, the tenses DO show the point I was making.
Not an oxymoron, a paradox. God enjoys giving us paradoxes. God generates himself into man, a virgin birth, victory through apparent defeat, God dying, Time and Eternity meet at the Cross.
Yes..it is an oxymoron. Why do I say that? Because the examples you gave - all the paradoxes - and there are many more, are all clearly shown in scripture. It talks many times about His Kingship yet His being a servant, His deity yet His humanity, free will and sovereignty and the list goes on and on. But.. there is simply no place in scripture that says He is hanging on the cross out there somewhere outside of creation and at the same "time, He is SITTING at the right hand of the Father outside of Creation.
And it isn't about God "enjoying" giving us paradoxes - it is about Him revealing Himself to us. And our desire to want Him to, or to rely on our own (or others).
So, you still have yet to refute the points made by the tenses.