Featured per Hebrews/Jesus Died ONCE AND FOR ALL/Why does RCC resacrifice him each Mass?

The Mass is mostly a bunch of Bible verses strung together. There is very little "new" material.

 

You are correct!

The Church Fathers statements are not properly verified. We don't know whether they were properly translated or extracted from various contexts which meant differently. We don't need to waste much time to verify them.


We have very clear and truthful teachings from the Bible, which says:

Leviticus 17

10And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people.
11For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

14For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.


The Blood of Jesus Christ was offered to God as the Atonement for All the Sins of the World. His Blood was NOT offered for human beings to drink! It was Offered to God for Redemption and Atonement!


RCC claims that they drink the Blood of Jesus Christ every week, which means They are Cursed and are going to the Hell!!!!

RCC people are honest! because they strongly claim that they are going to the Inferno, Purgatyory where they don't know how many billions of years they have to spend.

Jesus Christ Died ONCE FOR ALL! His Sacrifice was FINISHED!

 

You clearly have no clue what you are talking about. Read the catechism of the Catholic Church before you spew such nonsense.

 

You have no idea about what is Christian Truth|!

You better study the Bible Not the Catechism of Catholics!

 

I am study both. The catechism is full of scriptural references. What is clear that you have not, nor will not look through any other lense than the ones you currently looking through. BTW, all the incredibly large font is a little over-the-top.

 

Amen!

His Blood and His Body was OFFERED to God, not for human beings to eat.

We eat His Blood and His Body by Faith. This was what John 6 is talking about. John 6 is all about the FAITH.

RCC should stop regarding their dogmas above the Bible itself. They must discern any theology according to the Bible, about whether they are correct or not.

 

Just playing your normal game of dodging evidence you cannot deal with.

The very application by Christ to these Christ rejectors and false professors demonstrates my point that it was strictly metaphorical of coming to Christ by faith which is something that must be "given unto" you (v. 65).


I said Rome took the side of the interpretations by Christ rejectors and false professors. Taking their interpretative side and being what they are is not what I said.

I provided the evidence to prove they were Christ rejectors and false professors.

 

No, Roman Catholics have no clue what they are talking about and neither do you. The sacrifice was "finished" on the cross. The resurrection ratified that it had been accepted by God.

John 6:29-70 is an exposition by Christ on the meaning of saving faith not the Lord's Supper. Christ makes it very clear that "eating" and "drinking" all the way through this exposition is METAPHORICAL of partaking Christ by faith through simply believing in his Word. This is easy to prove and easy to defend.

Rome accepts the interpretation of the Phariseeical Christ rejectors and those FALSE PROFESSORS in John 6:60-64 rather than the clear and explicit teaching of Christ and understanding by Peter (Jn. 6:35, 47-48; 60-65, 68-69).

The Bible forbids both Jews and Christians to drink blood (Acts 15) and that is precisely what Rome is teaching in the Mass - drinking literal blood.

 

Yeah, I know your Baptist beliefs dictates it MUST be nothing more than a symbol, but in John 6, if Jesus was making it so clear that He was speaking metaphorically, why did He not call the many disciples back after they departed from Him when He clearly told them He was talking literally and say 'don't go, I only meant it metaphorically?

And again, Paul could have made it clear that the eucharist is only a symbol but instead he says:
Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? 1 Cor. 10:16

Now you HAVE to do scriptural gymnastics to make it all mean something that it clearly doesn't mean. What it clearly says, it clearly says, PERIOD!

 

He did one better than that. BEFORE they departed he told them explicitly why they were going to leave him and it had to do with the very nature of the lesson he had been teaching them and the "words" he used in teaching that lesson:

60 ¶ Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Peter confirmed that "life" was found in believing in his "words" and therefore to believe in him was to believe in his words:

68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.


Before they departed he told them that the reason they were departing had to do with the very metaphorical lesson he had just taught about saving faith:

64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

John gives the expository remark in verse 64 to inform the reader that Christ knew from the very beginning when these disciples and Judas made their profession it was a FALSE profession lacking true belief and that is precisely why

"THEREFORE said I unto you, NO MAN CAN COME unto me, EXCEPT IT WERE GIVEN UNTO HIM of my Father."

The whole previous lesson from John 6:29-59 had been on the nature of saving faith or coming to Christ in faith. He had first illustrated it by the Old Testament manna identifying himself metaphorically with that manna which if a man does eat shall have eternal life - eating and drinking are metaphors of partaking of Christ by faith (Jn. 6:35). He then proceeded to speak of eating his own flesh and blood METAPHORICALLY as partaking of him BY FAITH or believing in HIS WORDS (Jn. 6:47-48).

Peter understood that the lesson of manna and then his own flesh and blood was METAPHORICAL of believing IN HIM and in HIS WORDS.

Both the Pharisees and FALSE PROFESSING disciples interpreted his "words" literally instead of spiritually just as Rome does.

Both the Pharisees and FALSE PROFESSING disciples illustrated his lesson and why he had taught that NO MAN CAN COME UNTO ME except it were given unto him of my Father.

 

The whole lesson from John 6:29-6:59 was then applied to the unbeleivers in his midst (Jn. 6:60-65).

Peter understood that his "words" were metaphorical of partaking of Him through faith in Him and his words.

The disciples that departed and Judas are explicitly defined by both John and Christ as FALSE PROFESSORS from the very "beginning" of their profession and following of Christ (Jn. 6:64).

For lost people, coming to Christ in faith is just as repugnant as eating his literal flesh and drinking his literal blood - they will not do it! "Therefore I said unto you, that NO MAN CAN come unto me except it were GIVEN UNTO HIM of my Father."

There is absolutely no excuse to interpret his "words" as literal when he introduces this context with clear and explicit statements which show he is speaking metaphorically:

35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.

Here at the very beginning he establishes his metaphorical application that coming to him is equal to never HUNGERING and that believing in him is equal to never THIRSTING. He calls on them to EAT him as the BREAD OF LIFE in this sense.

47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
48 I am that bread of life.
49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

Again, he makes it crystal clear that believing on him is the way to obtain eternal life (v. 47) and then directly makes the metaphorical application "I am the bread of life" which he likens first to the "manna" (NOT THE LORD'S SUPPER) that fell in the wilderness. Eating of this METAPHORICAL MANNA means BELIEVING IN HIM.

Peter understood what he was saying exactly in response to those FALSE PROFESSORS or unbelieving disciples when he said,

67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God..

Peter saw plainly that eternal life was found in his "WORDS" not his literal flesh and blood, and not that He was literal "manna" and that Christ was calling on them to "BELIEVE" in Him or partake of him by faith, thus metaphorically as one would partake of him by eating and drinking of him or eating manna.

Rome follows the interpretation of the Christ rejecting Pharisees and unbelieving disciples rather than understanding and following Peter's interpretation of his "words."

 

Roman Catholicism is a mixture of Old Testament Leviticual Judaism mixed with Babylonian paganism with a touch of New Testament Christian terminology and the second post apostolic great Christian cult after the apostolic Judaizer sect of Christianity.

The Montanists, Donatists and Novations (not those from whom these names came and their doctrines) were the original apostolic New Testament Christianity which opposed these two great isms that infiltrated Christianity.

 

'Jesus' 'rest' on the Sabbath in the grave' ...

The word 'rest' should be used with great circumspect, because Jesus' 'abode' one could say in the grave itself and as such, had its own divine, saving and glorious, significance and THEREFORE only, may be seen as a 'rest' of his. Redemption through "our Passover" is complete in its three-ness, the three-ness of the "three days" the Scriptures often make mention of, of the PASSOVER OF YAHWEH. Those "three days" consisted of nothing superfluous or insignificant; every "DAY" of it was ESSENTIAL, i.e., without it, Jesus' redemption wrought, is not the real "reconciliation made" - the atonement or peace of the Promises of God; without the BONE-day, Jesus' work or rest, would be incomplete and ineffective ... useless and false.

And certainly, it is written of Christ in his death and grave, that "He" or "his flesh" - unlike the flesh of sinners - would "NOT SEE CORRUPTION". That makes Jesus' 'abode' in the grave glorious beyond comprehension and ALREADY God's exaltation of Christ, above the corruptibility or even life of sinners.

Because Christ had already TRIUMPHED IN HIS SUFFERING OF DYING THE DEATH OF DEATH OF US FOR US from "the very first day" of the passover "that leaven was removed and they had to KILL the passover" and He in the end of that first day declared "It is FINISHED" ... and mark well ... "GAVE (HIS) SPIRIT INTO THE HANDS OF HIS FATHER"!. Which was where and WHEN, Jesus' DESCENT TO HELL HAD ENDED AND HIS EXALTATION AND GLORIFICATION HAD BEGUN.

Thus one may have the right to describe Jesus’ stay in his actual death of the grave as a ‘rest’ of his. But this rest of Jesus, was not God’s or our rest on and of, the Seventh Day Sabbath BECAUSE Jesus’ stay in his actual death of the grave WAS THE PENALTY FOR AND WAGES OF SIN – OUR SINS; which was God’s ultimate PUNISHMENT of and REVENGE on the spurning of his LOVE. It was a death WITHOUT MERCY OR LOVE, BUT JUDGMENT OF AND JUSTICE FOR UNBELIEF AND DISOBEDIENCE – OURS!

Jesus’ ‘rest in the grave’ was the RESULT of ‘the second death’. For He ACTIVELY had died the ‘second death’ by his suffering and humiliation to its ultimate “THE VERY FIRST DAY” of his last passover, ALIVE, fully conscious and sober; WILLINGLY, “DESIRING”, AND OBEDIENT; THEN, PASSIVELY, entered into oblivion and the domain of “THE DEAD” – the GRAVE – “FROM” which, it is written ever so often, Christ again actively, “ROSE again”. And THIS rising of Christ “from the dead”, was the true, “REST OF GOD” into which both God and Christ, and us “together with Him are co-raised”, and “together with Him” and “in Christ”, “entered into His (God’s) own rest”, Hebrews 4:10. JESUS’ RESURRECTION, constitutes and therefore institutes, “the rest of God”, “the rest of God … God thus concerning did speak, and God the Seventh Day from all his WORKS, RESTED.”

Again, in this text, do we see that Jesus during his death and grave even, engaged in “WORKS” of God EVEN UPON THE SABBATH DAY UNTIL IN RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAD, the WORK of God was, that “He RESTED”.

Yes, God’s WORK by “the EXCEEDING GREATNESS OF HIS POWER” specifically “on the Seventh Day and Sabbath of the LORD your God”, was that “He RESTED”;
and God’s REST specifically “on the Seventh Day and Sabbath of the LORD your God” was, that by “the EXCEEDING GREATNESS OF HIS POWER GOD WORKED WHEN HE RAISED CHRIST FROM THE DEAD”. Ephesians 1:19.

Which Biblical truths make void and irrelevant and illegitimate your argumentation for a mid-night change in days. It would be “on the First Day of the week” if Jesus arose from the dead at “midnight”— not, on the Sabbath Day.

The truth is it reads, “IN the end(ing) _of_: the SABBATH … TOWARDS / BEFORE the First Day”.


Another thing about this remark of yours, is that you make the reaping of the first sheaf during the night, which historically never happened and clashes with the fact all sacrifices and offerings were made during DAYTIME. When the sixteenth day of the First Month happened to fall on a Seventh Day Sabbath, then on that Seventh Day Sabbath the first sheaf had to be reaped; it was the law --- God's law, after all.

The Commandment that says you shall do no work on the Sabbath Day clearly meant works of one's own interest and livelihood; not God's works He prescribed for even the Seventh Day Sabbath. Jesus made that very clear in Luke 6.

 

"Jesus Died ONCE AND FOR ALL/Why does RCC resacrifice him each Mass?"

Because they don't attach to the BONE-day or the First Sheaf-day, their true and due significance, but got stuck on the "day they killed the passover" and want to cram into it all the content of the Passover of Yahweh that FOLLOWED on the second and third days "according to the Scriptures".

In fact, I had to once make a study of the Roman Catholic explanation, and one of their spokesmen had to tell it is not Jesus' sacrifice on or of the cross that makes or had made atonement for sins, but his being sacrificed through the mass.

Yes, I have it black on white and officially.

So that is - according to the Catholics themselves -, "Why (they) resacrifice him each Mass".

BLASPHEMY!

 

Oh yea, I forgot that about them....Just one more thing I will have to add to my list of RC dislikes. Thanks for reminding me. :thumbsup:

 

Dont let anyone trick you.

The Catholic cult of Rome does indeed "re-sacrifice" Christ at every mass.

Here you go...

From the council of Trent...

From the 2nd Vatican Council.....

From the Catholic Catichism....

The Catholic cult of Rome has has had centuries of exprierence regarding lying, deceit, and deception, in all their various forms.