Deleting: A Silencing Tool

on Apr 03, 2010

You're not understanding the whole concept Lula. You're stuck on the physical "priest" and not on the whole concept of what God was doing here.
Funny, I was thinking the same of you.     Protestant theology is definitely short a few cards in the deck.
kfc #60 
The only priesthood mentioned in the NT is what I wrote above. It's the priesthood of believers. 
Your statements reveal you're stuck on following Luther and believing his denial of Biblical truth of the separate, sacerdotal New Covenant priesthood.  You are following and mouthing the denials of a false teacher.
KFC posts: we are called the priesthood of believers both by John and Peter. ......

Moses was given a blueprint for the tabernacle where God would dwell among His people until a more permanent house could be built in Jerusalem. Everything in the temple had significance. In order to understand the purpose of the tabernacle (and priests) we need to go all the way back to Genesis where we read that the Lord used to walk with Adam and Eve in Eden showing the close intimate fellowship they enjoyed with the Creaor before sin entered in. After that Adam and Eve were banished from the immediate presence of God and since that day the goal of salvation has been to restore that face to face communion between God and His people. 

The tabernacle was the vehicle thru which God manifested His presence among Israel and later Solomon's Temple. His presence would fill first the tabernacle and later the Temple. Now the people had a tent/Temple where they could meet the Creator. It still did not go far enugh. Sin had not yet been atoned for and only a select few (priests) could enter into the tabernacle and enjoy God's presence. Once sin had been atoned for all had access to God, not only the priests. 

The Jerusalem Temple did fall but Christ is the true temple in whom we now meet. In Christ we have access to the holy place in heaven where we can commune with God. Just as the tabernacle reminded Israel of God's presence so too does the cross remind us that have access to the Lord. No longer are priests needed to mediate us because Christ now is our mediator. 

God has met us face to face in Christ and we can be assured that He will never leave the temple that He is building in His son with us as living stones (1 Peter 2). We are now part of the holy temple that God is making His church to be. 

That's why John wrote "and has made us kings and priests to God"...Rev 1:6

"and has made us unto our God kings and priests and we shall reign on the earth." 5:10

The true temple is NOT in the stones and beauty of Jerusalem's worship center but in the resurrected body of Jesus. We are now the priesthood of believers. 

Just as the original Paradise was a place where man and God communed together so the ultimate paradise is a place of eternal communion between man and God thru Christ. That's why the veil was torn down. Full access to the throne. 

Therefore, Priests are no longer needed. That's why elders were named instead. 
Your post indicates you are missing the forest for the trees. Making this and that statment about the OT tabernacle and the Temple and concluding with "Therefore, Priests are no longer needed" DOESN'T WORK.  (it would be correct had you written, therefore Old Covenant priests are no longer needed).
kfc #60 

The only priesthood mentioned in the NT is what I wrote above. It's the priesthood of believers. 
Knock, knock, there are 2 kinds of priesthood in the NT....the priesthood of the faithful who offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass with the priest (1 St.Peter 2:5)  and a separate, sacerdotal priesthood called by Christ that St.Paul teaches in Hebrews 5:1,4 and 2Cor. 5:20 and 1Cor. 4:1-2.
The priest is called, chosen out, separated from the laity. Hebrews 5:1, 3-4 "For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins: And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins. 4 And no man taketh this honor unto himself, but he that is called of God, like Aaron."  
"Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ; and the dispensers of the mysteries of God. Here now it is required among the dispensers, that a man be found faithful." 1Cor. 4:1-2.
kfc #60 

The only priesthood mentioned in the NT is what I wrote above. It's the priesthood of believers. 
I say the inspired words of St.Paul to the Hebrews 5:1,4 and 1Cor. 4:1-2 prove your statement wrong.
  
 

92

Leauki

on Apr 03, 2010

Still waiting for the text from the New Testament that mentions priests.

93

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Apr 05, 2010

Your statements reveal you're stuck on following Luther and believing his denial of Biblical truth of the separate, sacerdotal New Covenant priesthood. You are following and mouthing the denials of a false teacher

at the risk of repeating myself (yet again) I can see once you put in Luther (as your attack) you've lost the argument. I've consistently only given you scripture by going to the original language while you constantly go to man's opinion. You give us RCC commentaries or homilies to back up your argument totally ignoring what is right in front of you. When I get you into a corner, using ONLY scripture you lash out with the "L" word. Time and time again you do this. Convenient Lula.

Not once, have I quoted Luther or used ANY of his writings in my defense of the gospel. Not once have you successfully shown us where Christ has reinstated the priesthood.

I'm done here.

94

lulapilgrim

on Apr 05, 2010

KFC posts:

I'm done here.

Fine, but I'm not.

KFC posts:

Not once, have I quoted Luther or used ANY of his writings in my defense of the gospel.

Since when do you (or any one else for that matter) have to quote Luther or any of his writings to believe what he believed and follow them???

KFC posts:

at the risk of repeating myself (yet again) I can see once you put in Luther (as your attack) you've lost the argument.

It's about truth, not about winning an argument. And you are not telling the truth when you say the only priesthood mentioned in the NT is the priesthood of believers.

kfc #60

The only priesthood mentioned in the NT is what I wrote above. It's the priesthood of believers.

This is not an original idea of yours......it comes to you from Luther, the forefather of Protestantism...it's one of his heretical teachings that you obviously believe and repeat.

It's about truth...it's about you recognizing that you deny the NT separate, sacerdotal priesthood becasue Luther denied it first and his false teaching has been handed down through the ages to any Protestant who will fall for it.

THE TRUTH IS there is a separate, sacerdotal priesthood called by Christ taught by St.Paul in Hebrews 5:1,4 and 2Cor. 5:20 and 1Cor. 4:1-2.

kfc posts;

Not once have you successfully shown us where Christ has reinstated the priesthood.

Christ didn't REINSTATE the priesthood. Why would He..the Old Mosaic Covenant is no more...it's Aaronic priesthood, Temple rites, cermonies and sacrifices are done.

In the New Covenant, Christ established a new priesthood according to the manner of Melchisedech. Christ instituted the New Covenant Priesthood and the Eucharistic Sacrifice of the Mass when at the Last Supper, He gave His apostles the power and authority to consecrate the bread and wine into His Body and BLood.

The very same consecration formula that was used by St.Paul in the Aposotlic liturgy of the early Catholic Church is used today at every Catholic Mass. 1Cor. 11:23-27.

95

Leauki

on Apr 05, 2010

Christ didn't REINSTATE the priesthood. Why would He..the Old Mosaic Covenant is no more...it's Aaronic priesthood, Temple rites, cermonies and sacrifices are done.

Who said that the "Old Mosaic Covenant" is no more?

We still have an Aaronic priesthood and Temple rites.

We just don't have a Temple at the moment.

In the New Covenant, Christ established a new priesthood according to the manner of Melchisedech. Christ instituted the New Covenant Priesthood and the Eucharistic Sacrifice of the Mass when at the Last Supper, He gave His apostles the power and authority to consecrate the bread and wine into His Body and BLood.

1. Where does it say that in the Christian Bible?

2. How can it be a priesthood to the manner of Melchizedek when you told us earlier that Judaism (and not Melchizedek's religion) was the first priestly and divine religion?

96

lulapilgrim

on Apr 05, 2010

Who said that the "Old Mosaic Covenant" is no more?

All those who admit the reality that it is.

But I'll clarify that as I did in my post....

the Old Mosaic Covenant is no more...it's Aaronic priesthood, Temple rites, cermonies and sacrifices are done.

Catholics believe the Ten Commandments, the moral part of the OLd Law, is still in effect and will be until the end of time.

We still have an Aaronic priesthood and Temple rites.

Not really. As to the Aaronic priesthood ....Not according to the Jewish Encyclopedia. The Jewish priesthood ended during the 1st century, with Phannias, son of Samuel, the 81st occupant of the Chair of Aaron. This happened when the Jewish state perished as Jesus predicted in St.matt. 24:2. In 70AD, the Temple and its Altar were destroyed "not a stone upon stone was left standing".

How can you have Temple rites without a Temple?

In the New Covenant, Christ established a new priesthood according to the manner of Melchisedech. Christ instituted the New Covenant Priesthood and the Eucharistic Sacrifice of the Mass when at the Last Supper, He gave His apostles the power and authority to consecrate the bread and wine into His Body and BLood.

LEAUKI POSTS:

1. Where does it say that in the Christian Bible? 2. How can it be a priesthood to the manner of Melchizedek when you told us earlier that Judaism (and not Melchizedek's religion) was the first priestly and divine religion?

as TO #1...RE-read my post 77.

As to #2, you've got 2 things going here....as to Melchisedech's religion, we know that Melchisedech was "a priest of the Most High God" who offered sacrifice of bread and wine. As to the NT priesthood offering sacrifice according to the manner of Melchisedech....they offered the consecrated bread and wine, "the clean oblation", as Christ told them to "do this for the commemmoration of Me."

97

Leauki

on Apr 06, 2010

All those who admit the reality that it is.

And a tautology is something that is tautological.

"All those who admit the reality that it is" must be the most curious and pointless authority I have ever been told about.

Catholics believe the Ten Commandments, the moral part of the Old Law, is still in effect and will be until the end of time.

What about commandments 11 to 613? Do you eat pork?

Either way, those commandments for the Jewish people. You don't have to worry about them.

And yes, they are in effect and will be until the end of time.

Not really. As to the Aaronic priesthood ....Not according to the Jewish Encyclopedia. The Jewish priesthood ended during the 1st century, with Phannias, son of Samuel, the 81st occupant of the Chair of Aaron.

First, where does the JE say that? Second, the JE is not a religious authority.

Third, Phannias was not the last priest, he was the last High Priest. And he wasn't even from a priestly family.

The priesthood still exists and the Samaritans still have a High Priest.

You really shouldn't pretend to speak for other people or religions if you don't even know these things!

as TO #1...RE-read my post 77.

Quote the exact statement in the NT that claims to create a new priesthood (based on whatever priesthood you want).

But make sure the NT really mentions priests this time, and not elders.

I am not reading through a large collection of irrelevant quotes. Just quote the very sentence that established the priesthood.

as to Melchisedech's religion, we know that Melchisedech was "a priest of the Most High God" who offered sacrifice of bread and wine.

I know. That's a given. What I wanted to know is how he could have been a real priest when you said that Judaism (founded 500 years later) was the _first_ priestly and divine religion.

Either Melchizedek was a real priest and his religion was priestly and divine.

Or Judaism was the first priestly and divine religion and Melchizedek was not a priest.

You decide.