Lon
Well-known member
He is yet our intercessor, but I understand the need for the precision here.
Have I gone MAD???
- Thread starter Lon
- Start date
Right Divider
Body part
Lon
Well-known member
Correct, in that, the rest of this is for Israel who had priests (see Right Divider's objection just above).
Note two things with me according or prior conversation 1) Only Hebrews have a Priest. In Mid Acts, we do have the sacrifice, but Christ Himself ministers to all His work effectually to us. We might quibble a bit with any number of us in conversation but they'd say 'we don't have a priest.' I'd simply intimate we only have Jesus however you view your salvation. Also very important: The 'priests' in this context are all Israel. Realize Paul never calls us gentiles priests. Is it important? It is if you are reading someone else mail. They may let you (the Bible) but it doesn't mean it was written to you, but that you can appreciate things from it. 2) In quoting 'not your mail' as if it 'is your mail' this is wherever, whenever any denomination becomes "Judaized." Mid Acts very specifically draws an indelible black line between Jew and gentile. With you, my mind races to 'no longer jew or gentile' but Mid Acts gets this right: There is no longer Jew or gentile: Everyone in this age must come to the Lord Jesus Christ in the same manner to be saved. IOW, they rightly identify 'why' there is neither Jew or gentile when even I had it wrong in thinking we were 'grafted into' Judaism. You and I had it backwards. Mid Acts has it right.
Lon
Well-known member
Romans 8:26-27
26 In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans. 27 And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for God’s people in accordance with the will of God.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Paul doesn't, Hebrews does:
But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.
25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;
27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.
Does Paul allude to this thought? What is the effect of Him offering up Himself? Confer 1st Corinthians 15:3
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
Sounds like offering Himself up.
"Hebrews" does.
Not Paul.
Hebrews was not specifically written for the Body of Christ. It was written for....
Drumroll please....
The HEBREWS!
Lon
Well-known member
Note the Mid Acts Tesla for your consideration:
Test drive it if nothing else. You'll appreciate the test drive even if you don't want one.
Objectively, a tesla would not work for me.
Don't need to test drive it to know that.
Objectively, Christ is not our (read: "the Body of Christ's") high priest.
I don't need to test drive it to know that.
Scripture says He is the only mediator between man and God. Thus, Catholics, who think that priests are mediators between us and God, are false, necessarily.
Lon
Well-known member
Well, realize you've already test driven, before you became Mid Acts
(it helps in conversations to remember when we/you were that guy). It also helps if another will entertain your/my perspectives. I've gotten so much more out of TOL conversations simply test-driving Mid Acts (might be, will take me awhile to figure it out). I was shocked the first day I was told "You are a Tesla (Mid Acts) guy!"
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
You said "Only" Priest. I gave an abundance of Scriptures which show there is more than one in the New Covenant, though there remains One High Priest.
No but Romans 15:16 is intriguing, have you studied the Greek?
That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.
That's all priest-speak. Some translations like the NIV even render it "He gave me the priestly duty of proclaiming the gospel of God"
All hinges on whether any part of the New Testament is not for the Body of Christ, which is the point in contention. We can't just presuppose it is true, but must prove it. Beyond a reasonable doubt. Like anything else.
Or not.
Right Divider
Body part
That's not too surprising... since the new covenant is between God and Israel.
Lon
Well-known member
It is like "God" in a sense. I tell atheists they didn't make themselves and so undoubtedly have a 'god' meaning creator. It is a starting point. Similarly, while it 'screams priest' to you, we have but one, only one. Hence, in Protestant Evangelical circles: Minister with a much different set of duties 'ministering.' The Catholic church has been symbolic rather than direct in application, much ministering (not all) lost in the sanctimony.
For that, drive the Tesla. You'll appreciate it if not buy it.
Well, drive it. Entertain it as I have. What really started me down this road was the book of Hebrews. It dawned on me the tenth time through on month, that I didn't have forefathers when Hebrews clearly marks it as essential to the book's argument. I then went "Hebrews" Doh! I started reading the 11th time 'as a Hebrew' and it all started making incredible sense as it was written about a wholly Jewish thing: Sacrificing at temple for sins. The problem was Jesus completely eradicated that system but these Hebrew Christians had to understand the full concept of what that meant hence "Jesus is better" resounds as a better sacrifice, better priest, all the way down. IOW, they were to give up going to a mediator between them and God as they already had Christ as not just 'better' but the Only and Perfect. At that point I became very appreciative of any who saw Hebrews the same way: Mid Acts. You don't have to buy the car. You will absolutely appreciate the test drive because a lot of 'mysteries' get cleared up rather quickly when going back and reading your bible with that test drive. It is worth the drive, maybe even a lease for a year just for the clarity alone.
On point see RD's post in that light:
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
It's also unsurprising under Catholicism. That's how theologies die, because they are shown to either be incoherent, or to explain far less than it appears to.
===
@Lon one of the things I love about Roman Catholicism is that I get to read the whole New Testament coherently. It's like the whole entire New Testament is opened up to me. Plus, I get seven bonus books to my Old Testament! All for free. As someone who loves the Scripture, and learned it from my youth, my experience with God's Word has strengthened in me beyond measure. The whole thing is written to me, as a Catholic; and I am to understand and interpret and read the thing with the eyes of the Apostles, how they read it. This is exactly what the Roman Catholic Church provides, and in a sense, it makes sense, because if and only if, Jesus Christ and His Apostles established the Roman Catholic Church, then ofc we would expect a perfect lens through which to understand the Bible. It is unsurprising. We look at Mid Acts, and we see just as you say, that they effectively cordon off huge chunks of the Scripture as being "not written to me". Well I find that surprising, if Mid Acts is the teaching of Jesus and the Apostles, so that serves as a defeater for Mid Acts. Doesn't prove it's wrong, but it does require an explanation which on balance, renders Mid Acts more likely than not to be the deep truth of the Bible.
And Mid Acts is up against Roman Catholicism, and Eastern Orthodoxy, plus the other, smaller ancientest Church traditions, but also Lutheranism and Baptists, who also are centuries old. Basically given the Bible, under which theology do we find the least surprising things?
For clarity I mean consider Trinitarianism, Arianism, and Modalism. There are Scriptures which demonstrate a distinction between Jesus and the Father. There are Scriptures which indicate some sort of ontological equality between Jesus and the Father. Under only Trinitarianism are both sets of Scriptures unsurprising. Under Arianism, Scriptures demonstrating distinction between Jesus and the Father are unsurprising, but under Modalism they are surprising (we would think they ought not be there if Jesus and the Father are one person); and under Arianism Scriptures demonstrating some sort of ontological equality between Jesus and the Father are surprising, while under Modalism, they are unsurprising.
But under Trinitarianism, it is unsurprising that there are Scriptures which demonstrate a distinction between Jesus and the Father, AND it is also unsurprising that there are Scriptures demonstrating some sort of ontological equality between Jesus and the Father. This fact serves as a defeater for both Arianism and Modalism. It doesn't mean they're wrong and Trinitarianism's right—but it does mean they've got some 'splaining to do, Lucy. And Trinitarians don't.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
And @Lon what I mean is that Roman Catholicism opens up the Psalms entirely to me as well, not just the New Testament. As I'm sure you know or remember, there's always a Psalm every Mass, but the real reason the Psalms are opened up is because we know to read them, whenever David is writing of his enemies, we understand this now in the context of spiritual war with the diabolic. We can read and even pray confidently every Psalm, because we apply it as we are taught as Roman Catholics, to spiritual war, in which we are all engaged, no one is spared by the diabolic, and David always knew the right words to describe the diabolic, everything he ever prayed about his enemies is perfectly applied to the diabolic, there is never any mercy for David's enemies, none. He has no mercy for them, ever, not even once, not even a little. But we are taught to love our enemies. Here ofc, Mid Acts says, that's not written to you. OK. But if it is written to me, then how can I pray the Psalms, and still be a Christian? Ah-hah. David's enemies are our enemies, they are the diabolic, and they hate you passionately.
Lon
Well-known member
So that's a 'no' on even looking at a Tesla?
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Yes, again, that's what Roman Catholicism believes and teaches as well.
Right, they are not sacerdotal, they don't preside over the offering of any physical sacrifice. But remember Romans 15:16, and also Romans 12:1, where offerings are mentioned. Offerings are offered by priests, in some way, shape or form. Offering sacrifices is priest work. Liturgy.
I don't even understand how you can seriously think that given all the Roman Catholic schools and hospitals which have been established over the centuries. You think this was all grift?
I drove it.
All Hebrews says is that the Old has gone and that the New has come. And the priests in the Old were distinct from everybody else in that, they were the only priests. Under the New Covenant, everybody's going to be a priest. And that is why we can partake of the divine nature and eat Jesus. It's also why we have the power to bless certain things and people, such as our spouse and children. We have lots of priestly powers, though this power is magnified in the office of a bishop (1st Timothy 3:1 KJB), who has the power to ordain new bishops. We can't all do that, there are some things, such as the sacraments, where Jesus Himself needs to be doing the work, as the High Priest. This includes baptism and yes, the confecting of the Eucharist and absolving any mortal sins ("Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained."), but apart from these functions which Christ through His and the Apostles' ministerial priesthood, in the order of Melchizedek, we common priests have priestly powers too, such as we can bless our own food and pets.
I like the way you describe Mid Acts, "a lot of 'mysteries' get cleared up". That's how I describe Roman Catholicism as well. I know we differ, but we're not that different.
Lon
Well-known member
It isn't that you don't read scriptures. It is that you don't willy nilly apply Hebrews, for instance, directly but through the proper filter: Written to Hebrews about a very specific problem. When I read it as 'my mail':
I read that wholly wrong when applied to my gentile lenses. I doesn't mean what I feared it did, not at all. It is saying clearly if you understand Hebrews, that you (a Jew) cannot come back to Christ, if you sacrifice at temple, after becoming a Christian. Why? Did they lose salvation? No, they rejected Savior, but the point Hebrews is making is 'if my arguments don't convince you, you've lost the ball and Christ is of no effect, you've rejected Him in favor of the old system done away with. IOW, as a Jew, they have rejected Christianity if they go back. They cannot be both, must choose between two God-given dynamics, one eschewing Christ altogether because He fulfilled the previous and eradicated it. You and I have only one god-given dynamic: The Lord Jesus Christ. These Jews had two in their minds and didn't understand that the former was done away with, ineffectual, thus "impossible" is about trying to keep both dynamics. That, my friend, is a Mid Acts paradigm. In any sense a Catholic has a go-between them and their Lord Jesus Christ, they too have put Him and what He has done to shame. That is about as far, in a retrospective way, you could apply Hebrew's message in principle, but you nor I can readily apply the thrust of Hebrews, just take the message and appreciate what God is doing with them, and apply any coincidental truth involved that does reach us. On the whole, the book cannot be directly applied to us, just nuances of things that may apply. Mid Acts does get this right and we have no grounds to offer any kind of solid contention. It is a must to drive this book's road in the Tesla (Mid Acts).
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Yes, I think that's the broadest point of Hebrews.
That the Old has gone and the New has come, is the Catholic paradigm. But I think Mid Acts agrees with this anyway, Mid Acts takes Hebrews to be concerning the then (under Mid Acts) active New Covenant. (They believe it was put on hold, but that's beside the point that Mid Acts would agree I would think, that the main theme of Hebrews is that the Old has gone and the New has come. No?
We do not, no matter how many times you repeat it. We eat Him. And whenever the sacraments are validly celebrated, such as baptism, it is valid because HE is celebrating it, in persona Christi. Ex opere operato. There is NO go-between WHATSOEVER.
The Rivian (Roman Catholicism) is a better ride. Plus we actually get somewhere, we don't drive into a ditch, something no Tesla or anything else can really help you get out of. You're still going to need to get out and push, or get a tow, when you're in a ditch, with or without a Tesla or any other car that isn't like a Toyota Land Cruiser triple locked. In fact that's what I'll compare the Tesla to, a Land Cruiser that's triple locked. I don't need a battery powered car, I just need a nice, safe ride.
Lon
Well-known member
By gentiles???!
Ceremony and tradition can do good things. Mormons don't have hospitals or other charity work of this nature.
Keep at it. You have to if you are on this site.
I may look like one to someone I help, but if it all doesn't point back to them seeing Jesus and me stepping quickly out of they way, they have an mediator between them and Christ and I'm not that good (better than most priests, but nowhere adequate for standing in between Christ and another).
He indwells every believer. You cannot get closer than that. The Eucharist is a reminder, it used to be a potlatch.
Simply saying Hallelujah isn't blessing. Blessing is the act of enhancing another's life. When ceremony gets in the way of us being Christlike, it is so much decoration.
As I said, I believe many Catholics are Christians with genuine relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ. The problem is that there are doctrines that handicap my fellow Christians: "Being saved" and mixed with works, for instance. Those who I know who are Christians would say they are saved by the Lord Jesus Christ, not 'being saved' as it were. "All who call on the name of the Lord will be saved" Romans 8:9-10
Scripture clarity comes when you either adopt yourself into Judiasm, thus the whole and replacement theology (Catholics, Reformed). Or you see the distinction between Jew and gentile and see that we are united, rather, on the other side: Through the gentile (as it were) message of the Cross of Christ. Either will nicely inform, after a fashion, how we read the Bible, but having looked at both carefully, I'm convinced it is that latter that actually embraces scripture the right way. The book of Hebrews show this clear demarcation. The compartment ideology is arguably the best way to do bible study as it asks all the right who, what, where, when questions of every text that no other theology system does as consistently. Their model forces one to give up preconceptions and read in clarity what was going on. If we don't assume it is all our mail, we get a better sense of what 'was' going on and how better by observation we apply and don't apply (Hebrews again, an excellent example and reference).