Mass with 2 Protestants and 1 Crucifix

" By the way, once a Baptist said to me, “You are wrong, Jesus is no longer on the cross, He is in heaven.” It happened to be Christmas and I noticed they had a Manger Scene (creche) on their table. I said, “Why do you have Jesus in the manger? He is no longer in the manger — he is in heaven.
“And oh,” I said, “isn’t that a cute statue of Mary! I thought you Protestants considered statues to be idols? Why do you have a statue of Mary in your house?”

A while ago we went to Mass with two Protestants. As we walked in the door — there it was, as big as life — a CRUCIFIX with the Body of Our Lord hanging over the altar. I knew what the Protestants were thinking — I used to think the same — “CATHOLICS ARE WRONG, JESUS IS NO LONGER ON THE CROSS, HE HAS RISEN FROM THE DEAD AND IS IN HEAVEN.” Of course they think Catholics are wrong to keep Jesus on the cross as though he had not risen and ascended into heaven.

Are they right? Well, YES and NO. Jesus DID rise and ascend into heaven and He IS glorified at the right hand of the Father and we are mystically seated there with him (1 Pet 3:22, Eph 2:6). BUT the Catholic Church is ALSO correct to show Jesus on the Cross — not only to remind us of His suffering and death and to show what happens during the Mass — but because in a mystical way He IS STILL on the Cross.

God the Father sits on His throne in heaven. And what does God see from his throne every time he “opens his eyes”? He sees Jesus on the Cross! Really? Yeah, really!

Jesus is our Passover Lamb (1 Cor 5:7). In the Old Testament the lambs were slain on Passover to save the Israelites from death. The lamb was held over the altar, his neck was slashed with a knife and the blood was drained onto the altar.

This is why we have an altar in the Catholic Church! The altar represents the Cross (among other things). An Altar is where a Sacrifice takes place! Jesus was slain as our Passover Lamb to save us from eternal death and to appease the wrath of God. That sacrifice is re-presented at the Mass (see my talk Defending the Eucharist!). Take a look at Revelation 5:5 and ask yourself — what John is telling us? It reads,

"Between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders, I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain . . .“

Who IS the slain Lamb that is still standing? Jesus is the Lamb! Standing on a altar before the throne of God the Father is a Lamb still bearing the wounds of slaugher. Jesus is that Lamb and he still bears the wounds of His sacrifice. That is what God sees when He “opens his eyes” — Jesus the sacrifice — Jesus on the altar — Jesus on the Cross.

Charles Wesley, the great Methodist minister and hymn writer agrees. In his hymn “Arise, My Soul, Arise” in which he says the very same thing in very poetic terms.

“Arise, my soul, arise; shake off thy guilty fears; The bleeding sacrifice in my behalf appears, Before the throne my surety stands, My name is written on His hands. He ever lives above, for me to intercede; His all redeeming love, His precious blood, to plead: His blood atoned for all our race, And sprinkles now the throne of grace.”

But wasn’t Jesus crucified once and for all, never to sacrificed for sins again? Yes, of course! In space and time Jesus was crucified once and for all in AD 30. In God’s eyes — in eternity which is not limited by space and time — Jesus was crucified before the foundations of the world (see endnote 1) and in “eternity future” He is still seen by the Father as a slain lamb on the alter in heaven, as the crucified Lord on the Cross. All salvation past, present and future is based on this one historical event. In the Mass, Jesus is NOT re-crucified, but we partake in a mystical way in the re-presentation of the ONE ETERNAL SACRIFICE which is ever before the eyes of the Father (see Endnote 3).

I used to say “Jesus WAS our sacrifice. He cannot be crucified again on Catholic altars, so Catholics are wrong!” But the Bible says, Yes, he WAS our sacrifice, but he also IS our Sacrifice. Look at what John says in his first epistle:

“[Jesus] is the expiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world”

The Protestant NIV renders this “He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins.”
The Greek word for IS (eimi) is in the present tense. Today, right now He IS our propitiation, our sacrifice. After His resurrection with His new spiritual body Jesus still has the wounds of his crucifixion (Jn 20:27). He has a body in heaven and still bears the wounds of the Sacrifice. He is presented before God as slain sacrifice — yet now alive. So, what does God see when He “opens his eyes”? He sees Jesus on the Cross! If this is what God sees in heaven, then it is certainly proper for us to show Jesus on a Cross to remind us what he did for us — and to see what God sees every day and has from eternity. So Catholic are right after all. Suprise! Surprise!

**************************** Endnote 1: There are two ways to translate this verse, but either way it comes out making the point. The best Protestant translations of Revelation 13:8 read: “All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world” (NIV – New International Version).

“All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” (NKJV – New King James Version).

Endnote 2: Endnote 3: Catechism paragraph 1367: “The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: ‘The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.’ ‘And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory’.”

“Do you know how the canon of the bible was compiled?”

Historian J. A. Wylie said this
It is idle in Rome to say, “I gave you the Bible, and therefore you must believe in me before you can believe in it.” The facts...conclusively dispose of this claim. Rome did not give us the Bible—she did all in her power to keep it from us; she retained it under the seal of a dead language; and when others broke that seal, and threw open its pages to all, she stood over the book, and unsheathing her fiery sword, would permit none to read the message of life, save at the peril of eternal anathema” (emphasis in original).i

Many actual good Christians died by the hands of you romans trying to read, obtain, and learn the Bible over the last thousand years and now all of a sudden you romans what to claim the openness of the Bible, yeah ok.

For you to even make a silly statement like that tells me that what I’m about to say is going to be way above your head. You have spoken nothing but rcc talking points noting more nothing less. It’s apparent that you haven’t even did the basic research about the Bible.

The Holy Bible was written by Messianic Jews not pagan romans. The one Gentile Dr. Luke transcribed the record from those Jewish eye witnesses.

If it was collected by the rcc then why don’t you have the original autographs? You have copies just like everyone else does because the originals were collected and destroyed in persecution of the real Church and by the grace of the Lord Jesus copies survived.

As far as canonized all you have to do is read the 1st century and early 2nd century writings and you can see that a protestant Bible was already accepted long before there was a pagan rcc.

“But then again he told them to build the Ark with the 2 angels on top, how to adorn the walls of the temple and to make the brass serpent. Guess there were some exceptions.”

Yes exceptions and written and authorized in the Holy Word of God can you give me that exception of any other idols? You know like roman build me a crucifix or a demon mary statue... or maybe a vile of blood or even a tooth?..

No you can’t therefore they are not acceptable according to God and His Holy Word.

They are mute, deaf, and non seeing idols that you romans worship against God’s Word.

“Peter is the rock as assigned by Jesus, no matter how much Protestants want to rebel against it.”

Post #32 “no other Rock” how many verses does it take a roman to understand numerous God is the Rock Scriptures...
“The world my never know” says the wiser owl than 1 billion romans.

Peter is petros, small rock or peeble as in Matthew 16:18 and the next word rock is petra Christ with is used in 1 Corinthians 10:4 to describe the spiritual rock Christ Jesus

And I tell you that you are Peter (petros), and on this rock (petra)Christ I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock (petra) Christ that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.

1 Peter 2:8
and, “A stone that causes people to stumble and a rock (petra) Christ that makes them fall.” They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for.

Matthew 14:28
“Lord, if it’s you,” (petros) Peter replied, “tell me to come to you on the water.”

What’s really horrible is that Peter your made up first pope knew who the Rock was/is, but you romans can’t read Peter’s plain and simply Scripture and understand it.

“If not then you have what we see in Protestant Christianity where the “lost books” still are read and the questionibg never ends.”

I have asked this question so many times and never received and answer, so apparently you have all the answers, so here you go I’ll be waiting.

Hey I’m still waiting on that reply mr. rome answer person. I mean since you rc’s gave the world the bible and you know all the mysteries of your god. Since you and other rc’s continue to use the argument of Luther removed the 7 books I will continue to ask why are they so important to a rc?
At face value it appears that you rc’s are just mouth pieces and have no idea what you really believe in except the rcc.org. 1 Peter 3:!5 demands they you be able to defend your belief to everyone.

Do those 7 books belong in the Old or New Covenant?
If they are Old Covenant theology how exactly does that pertain to a New Covenant Christian?
If they are New Covenant books please explain this...
How are they New Covenant when they are clearly before Jesus Christ was manifested in the flesh at Bethlehem?
What theological significance such as salvation, heaven, or hell do they bring to the New Covenant that wasn’t clearly explained in our current New Testament?

I have asked this question before and never get and answer, so either explain it or quit using it. With no explanation it appears that you rcc’s are simply mouth peices of propaganda with no real understanding of Rome’s beliefs.

Please help me to understand why you rcc’s hang on to those 7 books like they contain the ultimate secrets to eternal life or eternal hell.

Post 278
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3864661/posts?q=1&;page=251

Yes God said not to make graven images and now down and worship them because he had no form. Then came Jesus, who is God incarnate. But then again he told them to build the Ark with the 2 angels on top, how to adorn the walls of the temple and to make the brass serpent. Guess there were some exceptions. You need stop relying upon Catholic apologetics so much.Actually the command is that, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them:..." (Exodus 20:4-5)

Turn ye not unto idols, nor make to yourselves molten gods: I am the Lord your God. (Leviticus 19:4)

Thus besides any form of idolatry, the command is against making to yourselves graven images, specifically molten images for religious worship. In contrast Christ was neither graven image made by man, or even procreated by man, nor as born, did He appear as a God, while the images on the walls of the temple and the brass serpent were not that man making to yourselves graven images, but God, by special revelation, commanding such, and not for the purpose of worship.

Thus your attempted objections fail. Again.

I think I remember reading that in the Bible, which was compiled by the Catholic Church you disparage and written by it’s saints.

The NT was certainly not written by Catholics, since distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest therein (in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels). And see my next post which refutes your parroted "we gave you the Bible=you need to submit to us" logic, by the grace of God.

It takes an infallible church to compile a list of books.

That is ignorant and absurd, for the fact is that an authoritative body of wholly inspired Scripture had been established by the time of Christ, as manifest by the frequent appeals to Scripture, including "He expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. Luke 24:27) And writings of which provided the prophetic and doctrinal epistemological foundation for the church. Moreover it is even implicitly affirmed in Catholicism that btwn her canon and ours, we hold to the most ancient OT canon: “the protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants.” “...the Hebrew Bible, which became the Old Testament of Protestantism.” (The Catholic Encyclopedia>Canon of the Old Testament; htttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm) The Protestant canon of the Old Testament is the same as the Palestinian canon. (The Catholic Almanac, 1960, p. 217)

Meanwhile, it was not until approx. 1,400 years after the last book was penned that your church finally provided her "infallible" canon of the whole Bible - after the death of Luther in 1546. Who, as with other scholars, had freedom to disagree on the canon, which he did as a private opinion which Protestantism disagrees with.

And in reality, scholarly disagreements over the canonicity (proper) of certain books continued down through the centuries [go to link and read] and right into Trent, which after a vote of 24 yea, 15 nay, with 16 abstaining (44%, 27%, 29%) as to whether to affirm it as an article of faith with its anathemas on those who dissent from it, provided the first "infallible" RC canon (which is not all the same as even that of the EOs).

Thus the question, if souls cannot discover the contents of Scripture and or be assured of its meaning without faith and reliance upon Rome, the self-proclaimed infallible judge, then how did souls prior to Rome rightly discern both men and writing as being from God?

Also, how can it be that souls cannot know what writings are of God without faith in Rome yet they are expected to see that Rome is of God and thus submit to her, and thus know what writings are of God?

, In addition, further consider the problems with Catholic apologetical ("we gave you the Bible=you need to submit to us") logic: If agreement with what an entity states on somethings means that one should submit to all, then 1st century souls should have submitted to all the judgments of those who sat in the seat of Moses, as the magisterial stewards of Scripture.

Peter is the rock as assigned by Jesus, no matter how much Protestants want to rebel against it.

Actually, as far as being the rock upon which the church is built, in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8) Rome's current catechism attempts to have Peter himself as the rock as well, but also affirms: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some of the so-called “church fathers” concur with.)

In addition, that that all the churches were to look to Peter as the bishop of Rome and the first of a line of supreme infallible heads reigning over all the churches, and having the final defining judgment in questions affecting the whole Church, even without the consent of the bishops is contrary to what Scripture reveals of Peter, and which modern research even by Catholics provides testimony against. And is one of the distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels).

And where exactly is the numbered list? Guess what it isn’t numbered. Each commandment flows into the next in the book.

"Search the Scriptures..."

And he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments. (Exodus 34:28)

And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone. (Deuteronomy 4:13)

And he wrote on the tables, according to the first writing, the ten commandments, which the Lord spake unto you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly: and the Lord gave them unto me. (Deuteronomy 10:4)

Rome's current catechism

THIS ONE??

“And I say to thee: Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.”

Catechism of the Catholic Church

PART ONE
THE PROFESSION OF FAITH

SECTION TWO
THE PROFESSION OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH

CHAPTER TWO
I BELIEVE IN JESUS CHRIST, THE ONLY SON OF GOD

The Good News: God has sent his Son

422 'But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.'¹ This is 'the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God':'² God has visited his people. He has fulfilled the promise he made to Abraham and his descendants. He acted far beyond all expectation - he has sent his own 'beloved Son'.³

423 We believe and confess that Jesus of Nazareth, born a Jew of a daughter of Israel at Bethlehem at the time of King Herod the Great and the emperor Caesar Augustus, a carpenter by trade, who died crucified in Jerusalem under the procurator Pontius Pilate during the reign of the emperor Tiberius, is the eternal Son of God made man. He 'came from God',⁴ 'descended from heaven',⁵ and 'came in the flesh'.⁶ For 'the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father. . . And from his fullness have we all received, grace upon grace.'⁷

424 Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.'⁸ On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.⁹

So what does Peter mean in Hebrew? Rock. Now you know what the Bible says

Rather, you know what the Bible says by reading what is inspired by the Holy Spirit of Christ in the more expansive Greek, by which the Lord provides a fuller revelation, as seen by comparing duplicate accounts. That Matthew was originally penned in Hebrew ( technically, more correctly Aramaic, or Syro-Chaldaic), is a dubious hypothesis.

R. C. H. Lenski (Gospel of Matthew, p 11-19) writes,

The Hypothesis of a Hebrew Matthew Breaks Down Whatever Matthew wrote in Hebrew was so ephemeral that it disappeared completely at a date so early that even the earliest fathers never obtained sight of the writing. Nor can this undeniable fact be reduced by the remark that when Matthew was translated into Greek, this Greek at once superseded the Hebrew. Anything written in any language by one of the Twelve must have been highly prized and treasured accordingly. The translation could not have been made as late as the year 90. Then the Hebrew original would have been at hand at this late date. But Mark and Luke were available in Greek for a score of years prior to 90. Why, then, did the Hebrew Matthew continue in use to such an extent that finally a translation into Greek was deemed necessary? Again, if besides the Greek Mark and Luke the Hebrew of Matthew held its place until a translation was made in the year 90, it cannot be assumed that the original Hebrew should have disappeared completely so soon. However generally the Greek translation was used in the churches, it would be only a translation. The original of Mat-thew's Gospel would have been retained as being hallowed by the apostle's name and as being highly valuable for comparison with the translation. Even if the translation be dated much earlier, the value of the original would have led to its preservation. The conclusion is inevitable, Matthew himself never wrote an entire Gospel in Hebrew. The ephemeral nature of what he wrote and the early complete disappearance of his writing attest this fact. To assume the contrary is to surrender this decisive fact... .. ...

A book the size of Matthew's would afford all manner of evidence that it was translated into Greek from a Hebrew original if this were the case. Yet it has often been remarked that the Greek Matthew reads like an original....http://www.bible.ca/jw-YHWH-hebrew-matthew.htm

Also see here on: there is a very good possibility that the possible “underlying Aramaic” for the “petros/petra” wordplay (possibly “kepha/kepha” in the unknown Aramaic) may well have been “kepha/tnra” – which then separates the Greek “petros/petra” by more than just gender issues; it changes the whole meaning of the wordplay.

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.