Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
What fellowship? The Apostles wree not fwllos with Jesus. They called Christ their Lord (kyrios); He was their teacher and master, and they were his disciples, students.
In the NT the Apostles refer to themselves as servants, not fellows of Christ. Fellowships are for fellows, something that is between equals.
There is nothing in the term koinonia that implies any equality of members. All members of the American Medical Associations are fellows; all American citizens are fellow citizens with equal rights; military officers are fellow members of the Officers' Mess, etc. But we are not fellows with God no matter who saintly we may think we are.
We may be in communion with other members of the same faith, professing one and the same God, and we may think of ourselves as a community (fellowship) of believers, the Church, and some may even think as being "in" Christ, but there will always be God whose ways and thoughts are not ours and we can never be what He is by nature, even though we may be with Him by grace. It will always be, the Lord-servant servant relationship, glorfying God, and not a fellowship.
Insisting that one can read the Bible only if he has the "fellowship" and is privy to special "gifts," i.e. on the "membership" of special knowledge and perception, is pure Gnosticism. Needless to say, Gnostics found Paul very close and dear to their hearts, for obvious reasons. And Gnosticism, to my surprise, seems to be the backbone of Portestanitsm.
If you are looking for like-minded people to pat each other on the back and agree on everything that's fine, but if you are trying to convince someone who doesn't agree with you, one will need a little more than "just take my word" for it.
If this is sufficient "proof" for you, then you only prove what I have been saying all along: one must believe in order to find the Bible believable. In other words, a predisposition to accept everything in the Bible as true must pre-exist. That's the a priori (what you call "baseless") or blind faith (which you profess, but vehemently deny!).
Let's face it, one day you woke up and were "touched" by the Holy Spirit, as you conveyed in a previous post, and He immediately "directed" you to the scriptures.
Is that not proof that this was not learned or thought through, but something that happened (apparently by none of your doing) in a "flash," like being touched with a magic wand, and from there on you were "hooked," or under spell, or mesmerized, whatever, but don't know why or how. Sure sounds like blind faith to me, FK! :)
It was what Abraham didn't do (kill his son) that was credited to his righteousness, or it was rather what he did do (trust and obey God) that was credited to him as righteousness, but it all involved doing something that expressed harmony with God's will.
The Jews call such deeds mitzvot, God's commandments, by which observant Jews live, and of which there are many (613 listed in the Torah alone!), and half of them roughly are acts of omission (abstinence, such as fasting) while the rest are acts of commission (mercy and philanthropy, etc.). But they fit perfectly in the example of Abraham.
The Jews believe (and I think Orthodox and Catholic believers can understand this) that by obeying God's commandments listed in the OT (and another seven rabbinical ones), they are credited righteousness in God's eyes (i.e. made acceptable to God), just as it was credited to Abraham, hence the Abrahamic faith.
You can twist and turn the words as you please, giving someone "credit" for doing something right or not doing something wrong is still earned. Of course, God is not obliged to give us credit for anything, so technically speaking there is no contract and there is no wage, but it is obvious that in the Bible God creates conditional covenants with conditional rewards and punishments, and God even obliged Himself to reward us for obeying His commands.
In the Binle, God makes "if then" promises and pledges. If you eat this, you will live, if you believe in Me, you will live...I will not let you go if you believe in Me...etc.
So, it's not just credit; it's not just faith. It's the works in harmony with God's will regardless if one believes or not and not just any works that God rewards. Thus, if I water my flowers every day does not warrant rewards, but if I do acts of mercy, even if I don't believe, it is still doing God's will even if I don't realize it, because being merciful is in doing God's will.
And, if you want to throw out Peter's epistles because you think he didn't write them, as you have before, that is up to you. Scriptures are my highest written authority, so I'm going to quote them for anyone who wants to see what the Bible says
Suit yourself. One can always dig a hole in the sand and stick his head in it and pretend the sun doesn't shine. :)
I do dismiss it as a late addition, as most do, for obvious reasons. We know from external sources that early Christian writers (2nd century) did not speak of the entire New Testament as holy scriptures and that St. Justin Martyr, as late as 150 AD refers to NT writings as Apostolic memoirs, and not scriptures.
We also know from early Apostolic Fathers and early Church Fathers (turn of the century) that the four Gospels were unquestionably considered "sacred writings" (i.e. Scriptures), but not Pauline Epistles.
I would say it was first Marcion (died 160 AD), a heretic bishop of Gnostic leanings to whom some trace their Baptist roots (!), who accepted only Paul and his writings and rejected most of the NT as well as the OT. He considered Pauline works to be law and gospel (you should be able to relate to that Reformed concept). :)
But the most compelling reason to dismiss Petrine authorship of 2 Peter is precisely in the paragraph you quote. Peter and Paul died around the same time (64 and 67 AD respectively) and clearly Peter was not in the position to see Paul's collected works, let alone call them "scriptures."
The Gospels, which were written after Paul's Epistles, and certainly after Peter's passing, never even mention Paul, or his writings, nor does anyone call them "scriptures."
2 Peter also betrays Christian impatience with the Second Coming (2 Pet 3:8), something that was not an issue during Peter's lifetime, but a late first-century and early second-century phenomenon that began to weaken the Christian appeal.
Let us not forget also that the Church debated and had difficulty accepting 2 Peter until late 4th century, indicating that many had serious doubts with this book, and was probably included like some other disputed books, by such proven "inspired" methods like "horse trading."
FK, 1.2 billion Muslims in the world believe the Koran, and know exactly what authors defending Islam are talking about . They have lived it. They also claim to know it to be "true." Get real. That is neither a poof nor an argument worthy of consideration
2 Cor 13:14, "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with all of you."
1 Cor 1:9, "God the Father, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord."
Phil 2:1-2, "Furthermore if there is any encouragement in Christ [and there is], if there is any comfort from love, and if there is any fellowship with the Spirit; if there is any affection and mercies, bring to completion my happiness that you might be thinking the same things, having the same virtue love, united in soul, intent on one objective."
The Christian way of life emphasizes our remaining in fellowship with Him. When a believer sins, they fall out of fellowship. This is not the same as the sealing or indwelling of the Holy Spirit, but is associated with phrases such as 'walking in the Spirit', or fellowship with Him.
We only advance in the Christian walk while we are in fellowship with Him. We advance by Him further sanctifying us in faith. All true faith comes from Him. The more faith and doctrine He inculcates in us, the more He sanctifies us.
This also explains how so many believers may slide out of fellowship, attempt to study the Bibel on their own out of fellowship and simply harden their hearts, rather than allowing Him to sanctify them in their spirit, their minds, their hearts, and even physiological impacts in their bodies.
If the Bible being the word of God by “your case that YOU made”(Pride) attacks the Eucharist as Christ not being FULLY present in Blessed Sacrament(Body ,Blood Soul and Divinity),than “ your case” is influenced by the devil,FK
“Your case” means nothing if the Bible is not interpreted correctly,which is your case in regards to how you and protestants interpret the Blessed Sacrament of Christ in the Eucharist.
FK-””the Apostles had the explanation that it was symbolic, in remembrance””
NO ,Dear FK,you have a non Christian explanation of your own interpretation that elevates your heretical view above the people who God entrusted to give you Bible canon and those before them who defended the Christian Faith through tremendous persecution
The Catechism explains this well regarding “remembrance”
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm#I
FK-””if lots of early Catholics believed in the real presence, then it must be true. :) The OT blows that presupposition clear out of the water.””
The typology of the OT makes the Eucharist even more concrete,Fk
We have been down this road before,fk, and the typology of the Eucharist matches along with writings of the early Christians to boot.
from Scripturecatholic.com
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html#eucharist-Ib
I know this is long but I will post it anyway
Foreshadowing of the Requirement to Consume the Sacrifice
Gen. 22:9-13 - God saved Abraham's first-born son on Mount Moriah with a substitute sacrifice which had to be consumed. This foreshadowed the real sacrifice of Israel's true first-born son (Jesus) who must be consumed.
Exodus 12:5 - the paschal lamb that was sacrificed and eaten had to be without blemish. Luke 23:4,14; John 18:38 - Jesus is the true paschal Lamb without blemish.
Exodus 12:7,22-23 - the blood of the lamb had to be sprinkled on the two door posts. This paschal sacrifice foreshadows the true Lamb of sacrifice and the two posts of His cross on which His blood was sprinkled.
Exodus 12:8,11 - the paschal lamb had to be eaten by the faithful in order for God to “pass over” the house and spare their first-born sons. Jesus, the true paschal Lamb, must also be eaten by the faithful in order for God to forgive their sins.
Exodus 12:43-45; Ezek. 44:9 - no one outside the “family of God” shall eat the lamb. Non-Catholics should not partake of the Eucharist until they are in full communion with the Church.
Exodus 12:49 - no uncircumcised person shall eat of the lamb. Baptism is the new circumcision for Catholics, and thus one must be baptized in order to partake of the Lamb.
Exodus 12:47; Num. 9:12 - the paschal lamb's bones could not be broken. John 19:33 - none of Jesus’ bones were broken.
Exodus 16:4-36; Neh 9:15 - God gave His people bread from heaven to sustain them on their journey to the promised land. This foreshadows the true bread from heaven which God gives to us at Mass to sustain us on our journey to heaven.
Exodus 24:9-11 - the Mosaic covenant was consummated with a meal in the presence of God. The New and eternal Covenant is consummated with the Eucharistic meal - the body and blood of Jesus Christ under the appearance of bread and wine.
Exodus 29:33 – God commands that they shall eat those things with which atonement was made. Jesus is the true Lamb of atonement and must now be eaten.
Lev. 7:15 - the Aaronic sacrifices absolutely had to be eaten in order to restore communion with God. These sacrifices all foreshadow the one eternal sacrifice which must also be eaten to restore communion with God. This is the Eucharist (from the Greek word “eukaristia” which means “thanksgiving”).
Lev. 17:11,14 - in the Old Testament, we see that the life of the flesh is the blood which could never be drunk. In the New Testament, Jesus Christ's blood is the source of new life, and now must be drunk.
Gen. 9:4-5; Deut.12:16,23-24 - in these verses we see other prohibitions on drinking blood, yet Jesus commands us to drink His blood because it is the true source of life.
2 Kings 4:43 - this passage foreshadows the multiplication of the loaves and the true bread from heaven which is Jesus Christ.
2 Chron. 30:15-17; 35:1,6,11,13; Ezra 6:20-21; Ezek. 6:20-21- the lamb was killed, roasted and eaten to atone for sin and restore communion with God. This foreshadows the true Lamb of God who was sacrificed for our sin and who must now be consumed for our salvation.
Neh. 9:15 – God gave the Israelites bread from heaven for their hunger, which foreshadows the true heavenly bread who is Jesus.
Psalm 78:24-25; 105:40 - the raining of manna and the bread from angels foreshadows the true bread from heaven, Jesus Christ.
Isaiah 53:7 - this verse foreshadows the true Lamb of God who was slain for our sins and who must be consumed.
Wis. 16:20 - this foreshadows the true bread from heaven which will be suited to every taste. All will be welcome to partake of this heavenly bread, which is Jesus Christ.
Sir. 24:21 - God says those who eat Him will hunger for more, and those who drink Him will thirst for more.
Ezek. 2:8-10; 3:1-3 - God orders Ezekiel to open his mouth and eat the scroll which is the Word of God. This foreshadows the true Word of God, Jesus Christ, who must be consumed.
Zech. 12:10 - this foreshadows the true first-born Son who was pierced for the sins of the inhabitants of the new Jerusalem.
Zech. 13:1 - on the day of piercing, a fountain (of blood and water) will cleanse the sins of those in the new House of David
(b). Jesus Institutes the Eucharist / More Proofs of the Real Presence
Matt. 26:26-28; Mark. 14:22,24; Luke 22;19-20; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - Jesus says, this IS my body and blood. Jesus does not say, this is a symbol of my body and blood.
Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19-20 - the Greek phrase is “Touto estin to soma mou.” This phraseology means “this is actually” or “this is really” my body and blood.
1 Cor. 11:24 - the same translation is used by Paul - “touto mou estin to soma.” The statement is “this is really” my body and blood. Nowhere in Scripture does God ever declare something without making it so.
Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19 - to deny the 2,000 year-old Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, Protestants must argue that Jesus was really saying “this represents (not is) my body and blood.” However, Aramaic, the language that Jesus spoke, had over 30 words for “represent,” but Jesus did not use any of them. He used the Aramaic word for “estin” which means “is.”
Matt. 26:28; Mark. 14:24; Luke 22:20 - Jesus’ use of “poured out” in reference to His blood also emphasizes the reality of its presence.
Exodus 24:8 - Jesus emphasizes the reality of His actual blood being present by using Moses’ statement “blood of the covenant.”
1 Cor. 10:16 - Paul asks the question, “the cup of blessing and the bread of which we partake, is it not an actual participation in Christ's body and blood?” Is Paul really asking because He, the divinely inspired writer, does not understand? No, of course not. Paul's questions are obviously rhetorical. This IS the actual body and blood. Further, the Greek word “koinonia” describes an actual, not symbolic participation in the body and blood.
1 Cor. 10:18 - in this verse, Paul is saying we are what we eat. We are not partners with a symbol. We are partners of the one actual body.
1 Cor. 11:23 - Paul does not explain what he has actually received directly from Christ, except in the case when he teaches about the Eucharist. Here, Paul emphasizes the importance of the Eucharist by telling us he received directly from Jesus instructions on the Eucharist which is the source and summit of the Christian faith.
1 Cor. 11:27-29 - in these verses, Paul says that eating or drinking in an unworthy manner is the equivalent of profaning (literally, murdering) the body and blood of the Lord. If this is just a symbol, we cannot be guilty of actually profaning (murdering) it. We cannot murder a symbol. Either Paul, the divinely inspired apostle of God, is imposing an unjust penalty, or the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ.
1 Cor. 11:30 - this verse alludes to the consequences of receiving the Eucharist unworthily. Receiving the actual body and blood of Jesus in mortal sin results in actual physical consequences to our bodies.
1 Cor. 11:27-30 - thus, if we partake of the Eucharist unworthily, we are guilty of literally murdering the body of Christ, and risking physical consequences to our bodies. This is overwhelming evidence for the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. These are unjust penalties if the Eucharist is just a symbol.
Acts 2:42 - from the Church's inception, apostolic tradition included celebrating the Eucharist (the “breaking of the bread”) to fulfill Jesus’ command “do this in remembrance of me.”
Acts 20:28 - Paul charges the Church elders to “feed” the Church of the Lord, that is, with the flesh and blood of Christ.
Matt. 6:11; Luke 11:3 - in the Our Father, we ask God to give us this day our daily bread, that is the bread of life, Jesus Christ.
Matt. 12:39 – Jesus says no “sign” will be given except the “sign of the prophet Jonah.” While Protestants focus only on the “sign” of the Eucharist, this verse demonstrates that a sign can be followed by the reality (here, Jesus’ resurrection, which is intimately connected to the Eucharist).
Matt. 19:6 - Jesus says a husband and wife become one flesh which is consummated in the life giving union of the marital act. This union of marital love which reflects Christ's union with the Church is physical, not just spiritual. Thus, when Paul says we are a part of Christ's body (Eph. 1:22-23; 5:23,30-31; Col. 1:18,24), he means that our union with Christ is physical, not just spiritual. But our union with Christ can only be physical if He is actually giving us something physical, that is Himself, which is His body and blood to consume (otherwise it is a mere spiritual union).
Luke 14:15 - blessed is he who eats this bread in the kingdom of God, on earth and in heaven.
Luke 22:19, 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - Jesus commands the apostles to “do this,” that is, offer the Eucharistic sacrifice, in remembrance of Him.
Luke 24:26-35 - in the Emmaus road story, Jesus gives a homily on the Scriptures and then follows it with the celebration of the Eucharist. This is the Holy Mass, and the Church has followed this order of the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist for 2,000 years.
Luke 24:30-31,35 - Jesus is known only in the breaking of bread. Luke is emphasizing that we only receive the fullness of Jesus by celebrating the Eucharistic feast of His body and blood, which is only offered in its fullness by the Catholic Church.
John 1:14 - literally, this verse teaches that the Word was made flesh and “pitched His tabernacle” among us. The Eucharist, which is the Incarnate Word of God under the appearance of bread, is stored in the tabernacles of Catholic churches around the world.
John 21:15,17 - Jesus charges Peter to “feed” His sheep, that is, with the Word of God through preaching and the Eucharist.
Acts 9:4-5; 22:8; 26:14-15 – Jesus asks Saul, “Why are you persecuting me?” when Saul was persecuting the Church. Jesus and the Church are one body (Bridegroom and Bride), and we are one with Jesus through His flesh and blood (the Eucharist).
1 Cor. 12:13 - we “drink” of one Spirit in the Eucharist by consuming the blood of Christ eternally offered to the Father.
Heb. 10:25,29 - these verses allude to the reality that failing to meet together to celebrate the Eucharist is mortal sin. It is profaning the body and blood of the Lord.
Heb. 12:22-23 - the Eucharistic liturgy brings about full union with angels in festal gathering, the just spirits, and God Himself, which takes place in the assembly or “ecclesia” (the Church).
Heb. 12:24 - we couldn't come to Jesus’ sprinkled blood if it were no longer offered by Jesus to the Father and made present for us.
2 Pet. 1:4 - we partake of His divine nature, most notably through the Eucharist - a sacred family bond where we become one.
Rev. 2:7; 22:14 - we are invited to eat of the tree of life, which is the resurrected flesh of Jesus which, before, hung on the tree.
(c). Jesus’ Passion is Connected to the Passover Sacrifice where the Lamb Must Be Eaten
Matt. 26:2; Mark 14:12; Luke 22:7 - Jesus’ passion is clearly identified with the Passover sacrifice (where lambs were slain and eaten).
John 1:29,36; Acts 8:32; 1 Peter 1:19 - Jesus is described as the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. The Lamb must be sacrificed and eaten.
Luke 23:4,14; John 18:38; 19:4,6 - under the Old Covenant, the lambs were examined on Nisan 14 to ensure that they had no blemish. The Gospel writers also emphasize that Jesus the Lamb was examined on Nisan 14 and no fault was found in him. He is the true Passover Lamb which must be eaten.
Heb. 9:14 - Jesus offering Himself “without blemish” refers to the unblemished lamb in Exodus 12:5 which had to be consumed.
Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25 - Jesus is celebrating the Passover seder meal with the apostles which requires them to drink four cups of wine. But Jesus only presents the first three cups. He stops at the Third Cup (called “Cup of Blessing” - that is why Paul in 1 Cor. 10:16 uses the phrase “Cup of Blessing” to refer to the Eucharist – he ties the seder meal to the Eucharistic sacrifice). But Jesus conspicuously tells his apostles that He is omitting the Fourth Cup called the “Cup of Consummation.” The Gospel writers point this critical omission of the seder meal out to us to demonstrate that the Eucharistic sacrifice and the sacrifice on the cross are one and the same sacrifice, and the sacrifice would not be completed until Jesus drank the Fourth Cup on the cross.
Matt. 26:30; Mark 14:26 - they sung the great Hallel, which traditionally followed the Third Cup of the seder meal, but did not drink the Fourth Cup of Consummation. The Passover sacrifice had begun, but was not yet finished. It continued in the Garden of Gethsemane and was consummated on the cross.
Matt. 26:39; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42; John 18:11 - our Lord acknowledges He has one more cup to drink. This is the Cup of Consummation which he will drink on the cross.
Psalm 116:13 - this passage references this cup of salvation. Jesus will offer this Cup as both Priest and Victim. This is the final cup of the New Testament Passover.
Luke 22:44 - after the Eucharist, Jesus sweats blood in the garden of Gethsemane. This shows that His sacrifice began in the Upper Room and connects the Passion to the seder meal where the lamb must not only be sacrificed, but consumed.
Matt. 27:34; Mark 15:23 - Jesus, in his Passion, refuses to even drink an opiate. The writers point this out to emphasize that the final cup will be drunk on the cross, after the Paschal Lamb's sacrifice is completed.
John 19:23 - this verse describes the “chiton” garment Jesus wore when He offered Himself on the cross. These were worn by the Old Testament priests to offer sacrifices. See Exodus 28:4; Lev. 16:4.
John 19:29; cf. Matt. 27:48; Mark 15:36; - Jesus is provided wine (the Fourth Cup) on a hyssop branch which was used to sprinkle the lambs’ blood in Exodus 12:22. This ties Jesus’ sacrifice to the Passover lambs which had to be consumed in the seder meal which was ceremonially completed by drinking the Cup of Consummation. Then in John 19:30, Jesus says, “It is consummated.” The sacrifice began in the upper room and was completed on the cross. God’s love for humanity is made manifest.
Matt. 27:45; Mark 15:33; John 19:14 - the Gospel writers confirm Jesus’ death at the sixth hour, just when the Passover lambs were sacrificed. Again, this ties Jesus’ death to the death of the Passover lambs. Like the Old Covenant, in the New Covenant, the Passover Lamb must be eaten.
1 Cor. 5:7 - Paul tells us that the Lamb has been sacrificed. But what do we need to do? Some Protestants say we just need to accept Jesus as personal Lord and Savior.
1 Cor. 5:8 - But Paul says that we need to celebrate the Eucharistic feast. This means that we need to eat the Lamb. We need to restore communion with God.
Heb. 13:15 - “sacrifice of praise” or “toda” refers to the thanksgiving offerings of Lev. 7:12-15; 22:29-30 which had to be eaten.
1 Cor. 10:16 - Paul's use of the phrase “the cup of blessing” refers to the Third Cup of the seder meal. This demonstrates that the seder meal is tied to Christ's Eucharistic sacrifice.
John 19:34-35 - John conspicuously draws attention here. The blood (Eucharist) and water (baptism) make the fountain that cleanses sin as prophesied in Zech 13:1. Just like the birth of the first bride came from the rib of the first Adam, the birth of the second bride (the Church) came from the rib of the second Adam (Jesus). Gen. 2:22.
John 7:38 - out of His Heart shall flow rivers of living water, the Spirit. Consequently, Catholics devote themselves to Jesus’ Sacred Heart.
Matt. 2:1, Luke 2:4-7 - Jesus the bread of life was born in a feeding trough in the city of Bethlehem, which means “house of bread.”
Luke 2: 7,12 - Jesus was born in a “manger” (which means “to eat”). This symbolism reveals that Jesus took on flesh and was born to be food for the salvation of the world.
(d). The Eucharist Makes Present Jesus’ One Eternal Sacrifice; it's Not Just a Symbolic Memorial
Gen. 14:18 - remember that Melchizedek’s bread and wine offering foreshadowed the sacramental re-presentation of Jesus’ offering.
Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - the translation of Jesus’ words of consecration is “touto poieite tan eman anamnasin.” Jesus literally said “offer this as my memorial sacrifice.” The word “poiein” (do) refers to offering a sacrifice (see, e.g., Exodus 29:38-39, where God uses the same word – poieseis – regarding the sacrifice of the lambs on the altar). The word “anamnesis” (remembrance) also refers to a sacrifice which is really or actually made present in time by the power of God, as it reminds God of the actual event (see, e.g., Heb. 10:3; Num. 10:10). It is not just a memorial of a past event, but a past event made present in time.
In other words, the “sacrifice” is the “memorial” or “reminder.” If the Eucharist weren’t a sacrifice, Luke would have used the word “mnemosunon” (which is the word used to describe a nonsacrificial memorial. See, for example, Matt. 26:13; Mark 14:9; and especially Acts 10:4). So there are two memorials, one sacrificial (which Jesus instituted), and one non-sacrificial.
Lev. 24:7 - the word “memorial” in Hebrew in the sacrificial sense is “azkarah” which means to actually make present (see Lev. 2:2,9,16;5:12;6:5; Num.5:26 where “azkarah” refers to sacrifices that are currently offered and thus present in time). Jesus’ instruction to offer the bread and wine (which He changed into His body and blood) as a “memorial offering” demonstrates that the offering of His body and blood is made present in time over and over again.
Num. 10:10 - in this verse, “remembrance” refers to a sacrifice, not just a symbolic memorial. So Jesus’ command to offer the memorial “in remembrance” of Him demonstrates that the memorial offering is indeed a sacrifice currently offered. It is a re-presentation of the actual sacrifice made present in time. It is as if the curtain of history is drawn and Calvary is made present to us.
Mal. 1:10-11 - Jesus’ command to his apostles to offer His memorial sacrifice of bread and wine which becomes His body and blood fulfills the prophecy that God would reject the Jewish sacrifices and receive a pure sacrifice offered in every place. This pure sacrifice of Christ is sacramentally re-presented from the rising of the sun to its setting in every place, as Malachi prophesied.
Heb. 9:23 - in this verse, the author writes that the Old Testament sacrifices were only copies of the heavenly things, but now heaven has better “sacrifices” than these. Why is the heavenly sacrifice called “sacrifices,” in the plural? Jesus died once. This is because, while Christ’s sacrifice is transcendent in heaven, it touches down on earth and is sacramentally re-presented over and over again from the rising of the sun to its setting around the world by the priests of Christ’s Church. This is because all moments to God are present in their immediacy, and when we offer the memorial sacrifice to God, we ask God to make the sacrifice that is eternally present to Him also present to us. Jesus’ sacrifice also transcends time and space because it was the sacrifice of God Himself.
Heb. 9:23 - the Eucharistic sacrifice also fulfills Jer. 33:18 that His kingdom will consist of a sacrificial priesthood forever, and fulfills Zech. 9:15 that the sons of Zion shall drink blood like wine and be saved.
Heb. 13:15 - this “sacrifice of praise” refers to the actual sacrifice or “toda” offering of Christ who, like the Old Testament toda offerings, now must be consumed. See, for example, Lev. 7:12-15; 22:29-30 which also refer to the “sacrifice of praise” in connection with animals who had to be eaten after they were sacrificed.
1 Peter 2:5-6 - Peter says that we as priests offer “sacrifices” to God through Jesus, and he connects these sacrifices to Zion where the Eucharist was established. These sacrifices refer to the one eternal Eucharistic sacrifice of Christ offered in every place around the world.
Rom. 12:1 - some Protestants argue that the Eucharist is not really the sacrifice of Christ, but a symbolic offering, because the Lord's blood is not shed (Heb. 9:22). However, Paul instructs us to present ourselves as a “living sacrifice” to God. This verse demonstrates that not all sacrifices are bloody and result in death (for example, see the wave offerings of Aaron in Num. 8:11,13,15,21 which were unbloody sacrifices). The Eucharistic sacrifice is unbloody and lifegiving, the supreme and sacramental wave offering of Christ, mysteriously presented in a sacramental way, but nevertheless the one actual and eternal sacrifice of Christ. Moreover, our bodies cannot be a holy sacrifice unless they are united with Christ's sacrifice made present on the altar of the Holy Mass.
1 Cor. 10:16 - “the cup of blessing” or Third cup makes present the actual paschal sacrifice of Christ, the Lamb who was slain.
1 Cor. 10:18 - Paul indicates that what is eaten from the altar has been sacrificed, and we become partners with victim. What Catholic priests offer from the altar has indeed been sacrificed, our Lord Jesus, the paschal Lamb.
1 Cor. 10:20 - Paul further compares the sacrifices of pagans to the Eucharistic sacrifice - both are sacrifices, but one is offered to God. This proves that the memorial offering of Christ is a sacrifice.
1 Cor. 11:26 - Paul teaches that as often as you eat the bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death. This means that celebrating the Eucharist is proclaiming the Gospel.
1 Cor. 10:21 - Paul's usage of the phrase “table of the Lord” in celebrating the Eucharist is further evidence that the Eucharist is indeed a sacrifice. The Jews always understood the phrase “table of the Lord” to refer to an altar of sacrifice. See, for example, Lev. 24:6, Ezek. 41:22; 44:16 and Malachi 1:7,12, where the phrase “table of the Lord” in these verses always refers to an altar of sacrifice.
Heb. 13:10,15 - this earthly altar is used in the Mass to offer the Eucharistic sacrifice of praise to God through our eternal Priest, Jesus Christ.
(e). Jesus in Glory Perpetually Offers the Father His Sacrifice on Our Behalf
Rev. 1 to 22 - Jesus is described as the “Lamb” 28 times in the book of Revelation. This is because Jesus emphasizes His sacrifice in heaven and in His Holy Catholic Church.
Rev. 1:13 - Jesus is clothed in heaven with a long robe and golden girdle like the Old Testament priests who offered animal sacrifices. See Exodus 28:4.
Rev. 2:17 - the spiritual manna, our Lord's glorious body and blood, is emphasized in the heavenly feast.
Rev. 3:20 - as Priest and Paschal Lamb, our Lord shares the Eucharistic meal with us to seal His New Covenant. Through the covenant of his body and blood, we are restored to the Father and become partakers of the divine nature.
Rev. 5:6 - this verse tells us that Jesus in His glory still looks like a lamb who was slain. Also, Jesus is “standing” as though a Lamb who was slain. Lambs that are slain lie down. This odd depiction shows Jesus stands at the Altar as our eternal priest in forever offering Himself to the Father for our salvation.
Rev. 7:14 - the blood of the Lamb is eternally offered in heaven with the washing of the robes to make them white.
Rev. 14:1, Heb. 12:22 - Zion is the city where Jesus established the Eucharist and which was miraculously preserved after the destruction of Jerusalem. See also Psalms 2:6 and 132:13. It represents the union of heaven and earth, of divinity and humanity. This is why those who enter into the Eucharistic celebration on earth enter into the presence of innumerable angels, the souls of the just made perfect, Jesus the Mediator of the Covenant and His sprinkled blood, and God the Judge of all.
Rev. 19:13 - in all His glory, Jesus’ sacrifice is eternally present as He presents Himself to the Father clothed in a robe dipped in blood. Jesus’ sacrifice is the focus in heaven and in the Mass. When the Father beholds His Son, He beholds His sacrifice for humanity.
Rev. 19:9 - we are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb where we become one with Him by consuming His body and blood. This is the nuptial union of divinity and humanity.
Heb. 2:17; 3:1; 4:14; 8:1; 9:11,25; 10:19,22 - Jesus is repeatedly described as “High Priest.” But in order to be a priest, “it is necessary for [Jesus] to have something to offer.” Heb. 8:3. This is the offering of the eternal sacrifice of His body and blood to the Father.
Heb. 2:18 - although His suffering is past tense, His expiation of our sins is present tense because His offering is continual. Therefore, He is able (present tense) to help those who are tempted.
Heb. 5:6,10; 6:20; 7:15,17 - these verses show that Jesus restores the father-son priesthood after Melchizedek. Jesus is the new priest and King of Jerusalem and feeds the new children of Abraham with His body and blood. This means that His eternal sacrifice is offered in the same manner as the bread and wine offered by Melchizedek in Gen. 14:18. But the bread and wine that Jesus offers is different, just as the Passover Lamb of the New Covenant is different. The bread and wine become His body and blood by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit.
Heb. 4:3 – God’s works were finished from the foundation of the world. This means that God’s works, including Christ’s sacrifice (the single act that secured the redemption of our souls and bodies), are forever present in eternity. Jesus’ suffering is over and done with (because suffering was earthly and temporal), but His sacrifice is eternal, because His priesthood is eternal (His victimized state was only temporal).
Heb. 4:14 – Jesus the Sacrifice passes through the heavens by the glory cloud of God, just like the sacrifices of Solomon were taken up into heaven by the glory cloud of God in 2 Chron. 7:1. See also Mark 16:19; Luke 24:51; and Acts 1:10.
Heb. 7:24 – Jesus holds His priesthood is forever because He continues forever, so His sacrificial offering is forever. He continues to offer His body and blood to us because He is forever our High Priest.
Heb. 8:2 - Jesus is a minister in the sanctuary offering up (present tense) His eternal sacrifice to the Father which is perfected in heaven. This is the same sanctuary that we enter with confidence by the blood of Jesus as written in Heb. 10:19. See also Heb. 12:22-24.
Heb. 8:3 - as High Priest, it is necessary for Jesus to have something to offer. What is Jesus offering in heaven? As eternal Priest, He offers the eternal sacrifice of His body and blood.
Heb. 8:6; 9:15; cf. Heb. 12:22-24; 13:20-21 - the covenant Jesus mediates (present tense) is better than the Old covenant. The covenant He mediates is the covenant of His body and blood which He offers in the Eucharist. See Matt. 26:26-28; Mark. 14:22,24; Luke 22;19-20; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - which is the only time Jesus uses the word “covenant” (which is the offering of His body and blood).
Heb. 9:12 – Jesus enters into heaven, the Holy Place, taking His own blood. How can this be? He wasn’t bleeding after the resurrection. This is because He enters into the heavenly sanctuary to mediate the covenant of His body and blood by eternally offering it to the Father. This offering is made present to us in the same manner as Melchizedek’s offering, under the appearance of bread and wine.
Heb. 9:14 - the blood of Christ offered in heaven purifies (present tense) our consciences from dead works to serve the living God. Christ's offering is ongoing.
Heb. 9:22 – blood is indeed required for the remission of sin. Jesus’ blood was shed once, but it is continually offered to the Father. This is why Jesus takes His blood, which was shed once and for all, into heaven. Heb. 9:12.
Heb. 9:23 – Jesus’ sacrifice, which is presented eternally to the Father in heaven, is described as “sacrifices” (in the plural) in the context of its re-presentation on earth (the author first writes about the earthly sacrifices of animals, and then the earthly offerings of Jesus Christ’s eternal sacrifice).
Heb. 9:26 – Jesus’ once and for all appearance into heaven to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself shows that Jesus’ presence in heaven and His sacrifice are inseparable. This also shows that “once for all,” which refers to Jesus’ appearance in heaven, means perpetual (it does not, and cannot mean, “over and done with” because Jesus is in heaven for eternity). “Once for all” also refers to Jesus’ suffering and death (Heb. 7:27; 9:12,26;10:10-14). But “once for all” never refers to Jesus’ sacrifice, which is eternally presented to the Father. This sacrifice is the Mal. 1:11 pure offering made present in every place from the rising of the sun to its setting in the Eucharist offered in the same manner as the Melchizedek offering.
Heb. 10:19 - we have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus on earth in the Eucharistic liturgy, which is the heavenly sanctuary where Jesus’ offering is presented to God in Heb. 8:2.
Heb. 10:22 - our hearts and bodies are (not were) washed clean by the action of Jesus’ perpetual priesthood in heaven.
Heb. 13:10 – the author writes that we have an altar from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat. This altar is the heavenly altar at which Jesus presides as Priest before the Father, eternally offering His body and blood on our behalf. See. Mal. 1:7,12; Lev. 24:7; Ez. 41:22; 44:16; Rev. 5:6; 6:9; 9:13; 11:1; 16:7.
Heb. 13:20-21 - Jesus died once, but His blood of the eternal covenant is eternally offered to equip us (present tense) with everything good that we may do God's will.
Heb. 13:8 - this is because Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. While His suffering was temporal (because bodily pain is temporal), Jesus and His sacrifice are eternal (because redemption, salvation, and the mediation of the New covenant are eternal).
Heb. 13:15 – the letter concludes with an instruction to continually offer up, through Christ, a sacrifice of praise to God. The phrase “sacrifice of praise” refers to the “toda” animal sacrifices that had to be consumed. See, for example, Lev. 7:12-15; 22:29-30.
1 Pet. 2:9; Rev. 20:6 - we are a royal priesthood in Jesus, and offer His sacrifice to the Father on earth as He does in heaven.
1 John 1:7 - the blood of Jesus cleanses us (present tense) from all sin. His blood cannot currently cleanse us unless it is currently offered for us.
(f). The Book of Revelation and the Holy Mass
The Book of Revelation shows us glimpses of the heavenly liturgy – Jesus Christ’s once and for all sacrifice eternally present in heaven. This is why the Church has always incorporated the elements that John saw in the heavenly liturgy into her earthly liturgy, for they are one and the same liturgical action of Jesus Christ our High Priest.
Rev. 1:6, 20:6 - heaven's identification of the priesthood of the faithful is the same as the Church's identification on earth.
Rev. 1:10 - John witnesses the heavenly liturgy on Sunday, the Lord's day, which is a Catholic holy day of obligation for attending Mass on earth.
Rev. 1:12, 2:5 - there are lampstands or Menorahs in heaven. These have always been used in the Holy Mass of the Church on earth.
Rev. 1:13 - Jesus is clothed as High Priest. Our priests also clothe themselves as “alter Christuses” (other Christs) in offering His sacrifice in the Holy Mass on earth.
Rev. 1:13, 4:4, 6:11, 7:9, 15:6, 19:13-14 - priests wear special vestments in heaven. Our priests also wear special vestments in celebrating the Holy Mass on earth.
Rev. 2:5,16,21; 3:3; 16:11 - there is a penitential rite in heaven which is also part of the liturgy of the Holy Mass on earth.
Rev. 2:17 - there is manna in heaven given to the faithful. This is the same as the Eucharistic manna given to the faithful at the Holy Mass on earth.
Rev. 4:4, 5:14; 11:16, 14:3, 19:4 - there are priests (”presbyteroi”) in heaven. Priests offer sacrifice. Our earthly priests participate with the heavenly priests in offering Jesus’ eternal sacrifice in the Holy Mass on earth.
Rev. 4:8 - heaven's liturgical chant “Holy, Holy, Holy” is the same that is used in the liturgy of the Holy Mass on earth.
Rev. 4:8-11, 5:9-14, 7:10-12, 18:1-8 - the various antiphonal chants in the heavenly liturgy are similar to those used at the Holy Mass on earth.
Rev. 5:1 - there is a book or scroll of God's word in heaven. This is reflected in the Liturgy of the Word at the Holy Mass on earth.
Rev. 5:6 and throughout - heaven's description of Jesus as the “Lamb” is the same as the description of Jesus as the Lamb of God in the Eucharistic liturgy of the Holy Mass on earth.
Rev. 5:8, 6:9-11, 8:3-4 - heaven's emphasis on the intercession of the saints is the same as the Holy Mass on earth.
Rev. 5:8, 8:3-4 - there is incense in heaven which has always been part of the liturgy of the Holy Mass on earth.
Rev. 5:14; 7:12; 19:4 - heaven's concluding liturgical prayer “Amen” is the same as is used at the Holy Mass on earth.
Rev. 6:9 - the martyrs who are seen under the heavenly altar is similar to the Church's tradition of keeping relics of saints under the earthly altars.
Rev. 7:3, 14:1, 22:4 - there is the sign of the cross (”tau”) in heaven. This sign is used during the Holy Mass on earth.
Rev. 7:9; 14:6 - the catholicity or universality of heaven as God's family is the essence of the Catholic faith on earth.
Rev. 8:1 - the silent contemplation in heaven is similar to our silent contemplation at the Holy Mass on earth.
Rev. 8:3, 11:1, 14:18, 16:7 - there is an altar in heaven. But no altar is needed unless a sacrifice is being offered in heaven. This is the same sacrifice that is offered on the altars used in the Holy Masses on earth.
Rev. 11:12 - the phrase “come up here” is similar to the priest's charge to “lift up your hearts” at the Holy Mass on earth.
Rev. 12:1-6, 13-17 - heaven's emphasis on the Blessed Virgin Mary is the same as the Holy Mass on earth.
Rev. 12:7 - heaven's emphasis on the Archangel Michael's intercession is the same as the concluding prayers at the Holy Mass on earth.
Rev. 14:4 - there are consecrated celibates in heaven, as there are with our Catholic priests and religious on earth.
Rev. 15:7, 16:1-4,8,10,12,17; 21:9 - there are chalices (or bowls) in the heavenly liturgy. This is like the chalices used to offer Christ's sacrifice in the Holy Mass on earth.
Rev. 15:3-4 - there is the recitation of the “Gloria” in heaven. This is also recited at the Holy Mass on earth.
Rev. 15:5 - there is a tent or tabernacle in heaven. Tabernacles are used to store the Eucharist at the Holy Mass on earth.
Rev. 17, 19:9 - the consummation of the Lamb at heaven's marriage supper is the same as the Lamb's supper in the Holy Mass on earth.
Rev. 19:1,3,4,6 - there is the recitation of the “Alleluia” in heaven. This is also recited at the Holy Mass on earth
We have all of this PLUS the writings of the Early Christians to back all of this up
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html
Give it up,Dear Brother and stop misleading others who think you should write a book.
wish you a Blessed day!
Irish: Unfortunately, my dear Kosta, if we have to explain it to you, you haven’t received it yet. There is still hope, though. I will pray for you.
Kosta: So, I am the "bad" guy for asking? If I ask you to do a bunch of math problems and you come up with correct answers, is it too much if I ask how you solved them? And if you can't, there are two possibilities: (1) one-in-impossible chance that you guessed it or (2) that you cheated (i.e. lied).
No, you're not the bad guy for asking, Kosta, but I do find it a little troubling that you try to put me in the unenviable position of either answering your question to your satisfaction, an impossible task regardless of truth I have found, or being assumed a liar. :) Nevertheless, I can try again. I know it was the Holy Spirit because I believe that satan will not lead people directly toward Christ, to His word, to His faith, to His love. And that is exactly what this "entity" did for me. And since the Bible says that I couldn't have been leading myself (as there is no good in me to search for the one true God), and we eliminated satan, then all that leaves is Holy Spirit.
AMEN, AG, well said. These are excellent lessons to remember whenever we defend the scriptures. And speaking of scriptures, thank you for posting so many of them, always on point. :)
AMEN!
What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death. But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. " -- Romans 6:14,21-22"For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace...
FK: Along with everything else I know about him, if he preaches that, then NO.
Kosta: But he claims he believes in the Bible. I am sure his beliefs are based on something he found in it.
Lots of people CLAIM they believe in the Bible the same way lots of people CLAIM they believe in Christ. By itself, as the Bible says, it doesn't mean anything. All of us (on all sides) are well schooled from our respective FR experiences that some posters claim things that can't possibly be true if we are to believe their own posts! :) So, if someone tells me he is a Bible-believer, and then follows that up with saying that God approves of homosexuality, then I know that it is highly unlikely that he is in fact a Bible-believer.
Even the devil quotes the Bible, FK!
Well, if you remember, MY personal stance has always been that satan has only ever MISquoted the Bible, and to a substantive degree. Many times that would be analogous to claimed Bible-believers making outrageous statements "based on scripture". As I said, these are usually easily spotted. However, there are plenty of issues that are much closer to the line, about which good Bible-believing Christians may disagree. One example would be eschatology. I just see a huge difference between disagreeing on eschatology and disagreeing on whether God approves of homosexuality. "Somewhere" in the middle there is the difference that identifies Bible-believing Christians.
Being a Bible-believer doesn't make one an orthodox Christian.
I completely disagree. If you began with "Claiming to be" then I would agree. However, part of being an orthodox Christian is following what was in the beginning. It doesn't get much more "in the beginning" than the Holy Bible. :) So, those who follow the Bible follow what was in the beginning and ARE orthodox. Now, you may come back and say that orthodoxy only counts for what most people practiced according to recorded history, or something like that, and that is fine. I am talking about what WAS there, regardless of how many people misapplied it then or now. :)
FK: Not only does [the term "Bible-believing"] exclude all false Christians, but it even excludes a large number of TRUE Christians.
So, then you admit that it is not necessary to believe in the Bible to be a TRUE Christian?
No, because there are very many perfectly good Christians who are not Bible-believing, but nevertheless believe IN the Bible. It's just that their interpretation of it is so afoul of logic, reason, common sense, context, etc., that they cannot be considered Bible-believing. It's a giant continuum. There are the crazies, and there are the misguideds (but still Christians), and there are the Bible believers. If one wanted to make an exercise out of it I'm sure there are tons of subgroups within each. I assure you that it is absolute coincidence that Reformers happen to be on top! LOL!
Which begs the question, what then makes the "Bible-believing" Christians different from other true Christians?
The difference is in the level of fidelity to the true scriptures. I freely admit that it is subjective, but as I said, we know 'em when we see 'em. :) Christians can have low, but "passable" fidelity to scriptures and still be true Christians.
Of course, I don't agree with you at all, as all Christians must believe the message of the Bible, as seen through the prism of Christ as taught by the Church and expressed in the books collected by the Church that are in the Bible.
Well, I would agree with YOU that all true Christians must believe in the MESSAGE of the Bible. The hard part is in agreeing on what that message is.
In addition to that true Christians believe in the Holy Trinity and in the Hypostatic union known as Incarnation, in Christ with two wills and two natures, one divine and one human, unconfused and distinct in one Person.
Yes, true Christians believe all of those things, but Bible-believing Christians are a subset of those Christians.
The Church derives its beliefs from Christ's oral teachings, which were later expressed as apostolic writings or scriptures (graqh [didn't copy]) of known and unknown authors that comprise the New Testament.
Well, if that was the whole of it then that would be one thing. But since the Church uses many extra-scriptural writings for its beliefs AND puts them on the same level as Holy Scriptures, that is a big strike against being considered Bible-believing Christians. :)
"Association" is also a poor choice because one can belong to an association and never communicate with its members.
"Communion" is a much more descriptive word when it comes to our relationship with God. So, if you are saying that those who are not in communion with God, through their own rejection of God grace, then, yes, I agree their reading of the Bible will be deficient.
But, at the same time, any human who shows mercy, if if he is a on-believer, is doing God's work, even if he or she is not aware of it or even if such work is not done to please God. Reading the Bible to do God's work is therefore not necessary, nor is faith reaquired. That much is certian from the Beatitudes.
Heb 11:6
(6) But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
Any mercy or work performed without faith through Christ might qualify as human good, enduring a moment to perhaps even a couple of centuries, but at the Great White Throne Judgment will fail to qualify or comply to the standards of Divine righteousness.
Such works shall be burnt up resulting in a good which eternally is a good for nothingness.
On the contrary faith without love is nothing,
You are amazing, FK. Sooo patient and sooo knowledgable.
The issue of something being true in a Christian sense is whether it agrees with what Jesus taught in the Gospels. For Christians, Christ is the standard against which the enitre Bible is compared; not the other way around.
Oh, FK, it would take the a whole new thread and probably years to discuss this. But the short answer to your statement is yes. Some of the so-called prophesies were not prophesies at all, but after-the-fact statements, often made up of several unrelated passages in the Bible. Others have not been fulfilled yet. Others were "fulfilled" depending on how you interpret and which version of the Bible you use, etc. I could list, and list and list and take up tremendous band width with examples. If you wish, I will be happy to. It's up to you.
Obviously, men for many hundreds of years have been trying to show that, but they have all failed, haven't they, since Christianity is still going strong?
What a naïve statement, imo. Christianity has opposed Islam with "truth" which is so plain and perspicuous in the Bible /sar/, for centuries and failed! Islam is the fastest-growing religion in the world because it fits human psyche more than even the Reformed theology. Failure of one side doe snot make the other side true. Besides, people base everything they are and their lives even into what they believe. If they admit to being wrong, what's left? So people to varying degrees believe things in spite of evidence to the contrary.
People don't want to be left without faith because faith is hope and people want to have hope that something good will result from their deaths (i.e. eternal life) and that this life is not about nothing, but a preparation or expectation of the life to come, and a glorious one at that! It's soothing and comforting. But, there is no guarantee in hope, Reformed theology and Islam notwithstanding. That's why it's called hope. It's an expectation, not a guarantee.
So, fear is a strong element in faith and with fear people tend to hang on more tenaciously than with other things, which often leads to denial. And denial is not rational, so using reason is ineffective in changing one's mind.
It's much easier to make money selling hope without guarantee, as people flock to hope for comfort and security, even though it may be a false or non-existent security. People don't want to hear the negative. Negative doesn't sell. :) That's why politicians will never tell you the truth, but only make you feel hopeful that something will change (some people even get elected on selling such hope!). No politician will say "I will raise your taxes, because such is the reality" and expect people to vote for him.
So, when you sarcastically say I could make money on the issue of biblical prophesies not necessarily being fulfilled or true, I support your doubt and fully agree that such a thing will not sell but not because it is false.
Lots of people have seen and even recorded the Loch Nest Monster and the UFO, FK. The lots-of-pople-do-it-so-they must-be-right approach is not a certificate of authenticity. Just because multitudes approve of something doesn't make it right. Hitler was put in power by a democratic process; he was elected. Democracy doesn't guarantee that the person elected is necessarily good, but simply that the majority of the people (or delegates) votes for him. History as well as present-day reality tells us that the majority can be and has been wrong.
I am not trying to discredit the Bible. Most archaeologists are not trying to discredit the Bible. The only archaeologists who intentionally worked in order to prove something (i.e. their preconceived biblical beliefs through archeology) are the ones who failed. That's the factual truth.
If, according to the Bible, hundreds of thousands of Hebrews lived in Egypt for 460 years and there is no trace of them archeologically, it is difficult to say archeology is wrong and the Bible is right.
Your line of thinking finds those, who base their doubt on someone else's failure, as "wrong!" What we have here is this: the Bible claims Hebrews lived in Egypot for 460 years; biblical archaeologists look for evidence and fail and that discredits those who express doubt in the veracity in the biblical claim?!? LOL!
The Israeli archaeologists have been looking feverishly for 41 years for traces of post-Exodus Hebrews in the Sinai since the Seven-Day War (1967)! They found zilch! According to the Bible, more than a million Hebrews left Egypt and stayed in Sinai for 40 years, mostly in one place, which has been found and positively identified. There are no traces of Hebrew in it. There are traces of Egyptians from the same time period all over Sinai, but not Hebrews.
We are talking a city of one million-plus people (what settlements had so many people in the ancient world?!?) and not a trace of it! A city of 1 million-plus people (the Bible says 600,000 men and their families), a settlement for most of the 40 years, and not a single artefact of any Hebrews in it!
You can deny it, but until such time as something is found we just have to assume that Exodus did not happen because evidence shows that it didn't. I realize lots of people teach that it did, but that is an unsubstantiated claim and the people who really failed are not those who doubt it, but who started to dig for evidence based on their preconceived biblical beliefs and found nothing.
Again, when something very threatening happens, the first reaction is denial, and nothing can be more threatening than for someone, who believes every word in the Bible, to discover that a whole chapter of it never happened! Quick, dig hole in sand, stick head in it!
Ze'ev Herzong, Director of the Institute of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University writes ("Deconstructing Walls of Jericho," Oct. 1999)
"This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. … the God of Israel, Jehovah, had a female consort [Aserah, and] the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism only in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai."
Now, I am sure he is not very popular among Evangelicals, but they can only hate what he says based on failed evidence . I can see that being threatening to many people who believe every word in it.
But we do know from other sources of learning, such as biblical criticism, that the bulk of the books of Exodus was composed from four different sources, and over a long period, each contributing different aspects of it. The largest revisions and additions to the book were made c. 400 BC, so we are talking a period of about 1,000 years. Again, this evidence is like a bombshell for those who put their blind trust in the Bible and naturally their reaction will be denial. I expect nothing short of that.
Now, which would one believe? Overwhelming amounts of evidence to the contrary or one's own personal testimony of a blind belief? LOL!
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.