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

In the city or town in which you live, do you have "ordinances" by-laws, etc.? An ordinance is simply another word for "law," "command." They are commands that we are to keep.

Now you define "sacrament" and see if it matches any Biblical concept that is in the Bible. "Trinity" is a word not found in the Bible. But the Biblical concept is in the Bible. Where is the concept of "sacrament" found in the Bible?

 

What do the words mean? I have explained this before, but perhaps you weren't paying attention.

1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless,

1 Timothy 3:2 δει ουν τον επισκοπον ανεπιληπτον ειναι
The word for "bishop" is episcopos. It is the same word that we use for pastor today. This passage sets forth the qualifications for a pastor.

1 Timothy 3:8 Likewise must the deacons be grave,

1 Timothy 3:8 διακονους ωσαυτως σεμνους μη διλογους
--The Greek word for deacon, "diaconos" means simply "servant." A deacon is a servant of the church.

Acts 20:17 And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church.

Acts 20:17 απο δε της μιλητου πεμψας εις εφεσον μετεκαλεσατο τους πρεσβυτερους της εκκλησιας
--Does it look like a familiar word? The word is "presbuteros" the elders of the church, another name for "pastor." The church at Ephesus had many elders. Paul called them all together at Miletus. Then he began to address them and encourage them in them in the faith.
In verse 28 he says:

Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

Acts 20:28 προσεχετε ουν εαυτοις και παντι τω ποιμνιω εν ω υμας το πνευμα το αγιον εθετο επισκοπους ποιμαινειν την εκκλησιαν του θεου ην περιεποιησατο δια του ιδιου αιματος
--Note the word is episcopos is used, and is translated literally as "overseer," as it should be. This is the same word that is used in 1Tim.3:2 that is translated as Bishop. It simply means overseer. That is another title for pastor, as we have already seen.
--Note the duty: To feed the church of God--the duty of the pastor.
--Note that he is the overseer of all the flock--the duty of the Shepherd. The word pastor means shepherd. He is the shepherd of the flock which is to feed the lambs, the sheep--the very command the Christ gave to Peter.

Here we have all the words that are used as designations for the same office, the office of the pastor. They are not different as you suppose.

1 Timothy 4:14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.

1 Timothy 4:14 μη αμελει του εν σοι χαρισματος ο εδοθη σοι δια προφητειας μετα επιθεσεως των χειρων του πρεσβυτεριου
--As for the word "presbytery" as you find here, we find from Acts 20:17, that the word means nothing more than "elders." They were the elders of the church, again another name for "pastors." Paul called together the elders (pastors) together from Ephesus, so he could encourage them in the faith, and he calls them bishops, overseers, and refers to their duties as that of shepherds.

Your distinctions are moot.

 

James 2:24 -- "You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone." NASB

Not commenting on my personal belief here. Just citing the scripture for those who love to prooftext and demand that that scripture be taken literally and just the way it is stated.

Most anything can be "proven" by some part of scripture; that's why there are denominations.

 

You might used the word for pastor but early on Episcopos is used for Bishop. I suspect that Presbyter is the term used for Pastor though initially the Episcopos is higher than the presbyter. Only in modern times have the terms been used to mean just pastor.

[

Yes and its still considered a status greater in authority than lay.

They didn't use the word pastor but Presbyter or presuteros which comes our word for priest which in modern times has come to mean Ieureus but not initially.

Lets break it down

Now lets look at the Etymology as the dictionary terms define them.

Now during the NT writings the Episcopos and the presbeteros were used interchangably but very quickly the church Structure changed. why? Well the Apostles died off. So in the NT the ultimate authority was Apostolic. The Elders then replacing their roles and the elders supporting these others quickly developed these offices into two parts Episkopos and presberetos or Bishop and his officers (priest). And finally the Episkopos became leader of a Metropolitan or larger area when initially they were just the head of a single church. There was natural developement of these roles. But its pointless to point this out to you since you don't believe in history.

 

Not so fast there friend. I will start where we part on your exposition.

I see this is going to be your strategy to escape the whole context.

"believe in Jesus" in this context cannot possibly be interpreted to be "doing what he says" unless/except you mean believe in who he claims to be. He is calling them to receive him from heaven as the bread life just as Israel received manna from heaven. It means exactly what it says "believe IN Jesus"!

They won't do what He says until first they accept and receive him for who He claims to be "the bread of life."

It is foolish to argue "beleive in him" means to do what he says when they don't even believe who He claims to be or what He has come to do.

John 6:36-45 is about coming to him in faith not about keeping any commandments.

 

What do you mean by this? Do you mean intellectual assent or a living faith that acts on its beliefs. If you mean the latter then yes.

The bible never teaches faith alone. You'll not find it

Jesus established the criteria not me. He made it a requirement to be baptize as is evidenced in the great commission.

God doesn't force himself upon us. If you choose to forfeit so great a gift then you don't get eternal life. Jesus requires us to remain in him as the scriptures tell us.

 

I get it. There is absolutely no hope of any kind of objective discussion between us on this subject. In my opinion you formerly had only a head belief in Christ and now you have gone to the other false extreme in defining faith in Christ as merely doing good works. End of story and end of any kind of rational discussion. So long!

 

I showed you the Biblical usage of these words, what they meant in the NT Greek, how they were used, and how they were applied to the same usage.

Now you demonstrate how in time their usage changed, their meaning changed. True enough. Why? Because the Church, particularly the RCC became corrupt. They neglected the Bible and introduced paganism into the church. All you have demonstrated is how paganism entered into the church and how the Bible was ignored. Good for you! You demonstrate how the RCC ignores the teaching of the Bible.

 

Not at all. I've stayed within the whole context of Chapter 6

"

Wait am minute right there what do the scriptures say about believing in Jesus.

So its quite clear what believing in Jesus actually means. Its more than intellectual assent.

Yes it does as I pointed out believing in Jesus is more than believing he is God but doing what he says.

Jesus didn't use quotation marks on the bread of life. But apart from that I agree.

it's fgolish to believe in God and not do what he says. How is that any different from the demons?

coming to Jesus in faith is taking on all he is about.

 

I beg your pardon. I also thought you were referring to 'Thinkingstuff'. My apology!

 

This is about "coming" to Christ in faith not about serving Christ by faith. The former is the cause the latter the consequence and Jesus is dealing here in this context with people who WILL NOT serve Him because they do not yet believe IN him. They do not RECEIVE who He claims to be or what He claims to be able to give them.

This context is not about SERVING Christ but about what must precede any service to Christ and that is RECEIVING Him in your mind and heart for who He says he is. The context proves this without doubt:

36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.

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.

This is not a context about SERVING Christ but RECEIVING Christ by coming to him in faith.

However, you cannot admit to this because it is your archiles heel.

 

John 4:10 Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.

John 4:11 The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water?

John 4:13 Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again:

John 4:14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

John 4:15 The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw.

John 4:16 Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither.

John 4:19 The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.

John 4:22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.

John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

John 4:25-26 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.

John 4:28-29 The woman then left her waterpot, and went her way into the city, and saith to the men, Come, see a man, which told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ?

The Samaritan woman had little knowledge of the OT, especially in light of the Pharisees and the Rabbis. Water is the most common beverage in the world. Unlike blood one would delight in a glass of water, especially if thirsty. But this water would make her live forever. Unlike blood she was willing to drink it, and gladly so. Unlike blood it was not repulsive.

Remember she did not know the OT well like the Pharisees did. She may have even been a bit superstitious. Jesus leads her to the place of belief. She realizes that He is the Messiah. Then she realizes she doesn't need the "water" at all. For Christ is "the living water." All that she needed to do was to believe on Him. Thus she ran to the city and told the entire city of Christ, the One who told her of all that ever she did. "Is this not the Christ? she testified.

This is no different than Jesus offering his blood and body a few chapters later. Why would the RCC believe one is symbolic and the other literal is beyond me. They are inconsistent in their hermeneutics, their interpretation.

 

Who said anything about Communion?

John 6:27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.

John 6:35 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.

John 6:51 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.

John 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.