Priests are a gift from the Heart of Christ, Pope Benedict says

CNA ^ | 6/13/2010

[Religion Moderator]

Source information must be provided when quoting another webpage.

[Diamond]

Where is hyparchio used to assert pre-existence? The exact verse please. The only one I can think of is Phil. 2:6

Bingo!

...who, being in the form of God...

huparcho, "existing", referring to the continued state of a thing, with morph meaining the essential attributes as shown in the form, i.e., the essence his nature.

Being (uparxwn).

Rather, "existing," present active participle of uparxw. In the form of God (en morphi teou). Morph means the essential attributes as shown in the form. In his preincarnate state Christ possessed the attributes of God and so appeared to those in heaven who saw him. Here is a clear statement by Paul of the deity of Christ.
RWP

Existing in the form of God denotes pre-existence, obviously.

Cordially,

[bkaycee]

http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/RCJustification.html

The doctrines of salvation embraced by Rome are, in principle, identical to the Judaizers. The Roman Church teaches that salvation is achieved by believing that Jesus is the Son of God who died for sin, by being baptized, by being a part of the Roman Catholic Church, by striving to keep the Ten Commandments and partaking of the sacramental system (which involves ongoing sacrifices, altars, priests, a high priest, along with the exercises of prayers, fasts, almsgiving, penances and until recently adherence to certain dietary regulations). The following lists demonstrate the parallels between Roman Catholicism and the Judaizers:

Judaizers 1. Belief in Jesus as Messiah and Son of God 2. Circumcision 3. Become a Jew 4. Sacrificial System 5. Priests 6. High Priests 7. Altars 8. Feast Days 9. Laver of Water 10. Dietary Regulations 11. Candles 12. Incense 13. Shew Bread 14. Keep the Ten Commandments 15. Tradition of the Elders

Roman Catholicism 1. Belief in Jesus as Messiah and Son of God 2. Baptism 3. Become a Roman Catholic 4. Sacrificial System 5. Priests 6. High Priests 7. Altars 8. Feast Days 9. Font of Holy Water 10. Dietary Regulations (Until recently) 11. Candles 12. Incense 13. The Eucharist Wafer 14. Keep the Ten Commandments 15. Tradition of the Church Fathers

The parallels are obvious. The Roman Catholic teaching on salvation is essentially the same as that preached by the Judaizers. Paul warned the Galatian believers that if they embraced this false gospel they would actually desert Christ (Gal. 1:6). Those evangelicals who would promote spiritual cohabitation with the Church of Rome need to heed to the warning of Paul. He saw no basis for unity with the Judaizers even though they professed faith in Christ. Likewise, there is no basis for unity with the Church of Rome today. If evangelicals jettison the Reformation gospel distinctives for so called unity with Rome they will deny Christ.

[kosta50]

My two cents here...doesn't the Old Testament refer to Jehovah as both LORD and Lord? And isn't the lower case Lord the word adonai or adonay?

The word used in Ps 110:1 is not Adonai. Adonai is always used for God. It means Lord God. The word used in Ps 110:1 is adoun (or adown), a secular title meaning  lord, as in master:

"The LORD [YHWH ] says to my Lord [adoun] : Sit at My right hand..." (NAB)

By capitalizing the word lord, Christian translators suggest it is Jesus Christ, and Mat 22:43-44 serves as "proof".

Christian lexicons claim the word adoun is also used for God but Jewish sources and my own search tell me this word was only used to mean master, who is in charge, as in Joshua 3:13, but not as a title for deity.

So, in that context, the Levite priest, who is supposed to sing the Psalm liturgically, is saying "The LORD said to my master (David): sit at My right hand...". It's hard to believe that Jesus would have misunderstood this linguistically and contextually as it appears from Mat 22.

[kosta50]

The Pericope Adulterae was not just that one verse but the passage of John 7:53-8:11. A quick check on Wiki shows that there IS evidence that the story was contained in early manuscripts

I did not mean to imply the verse itself was the Pericope, but part of it. And I never said it didn't appear elsewhere, just that it was not in the earliest copies of John's Gospel.

In other words, its inclusion cannot be considered part of the "inspired" text and therefore cannot be used as a matter of fact, and used for correction and teaching, etc. But it is because it is in the present copies of the Bible.

The Periciope is evidence that legendary material was added to what is otherwise considered inspired material; it is evidence of tampering and corruption of what is believed by some to be the pristine word of God.

Wikipedia is a great source for general information and I use it a lot for a quick review. However, one cannot stop with Wikipedia. For example, Codex Bezae is a variant Codex. In it, one finds things that disagree with just about any other biblical source. Syriac sources tend to vary likewise. Why should either be a reliable witness?

Or Papias, to whom we owe pretty much everything we 'know' about the authors of the New Testament, except that he obtained his information, according to him "only from people who tell the truth"(!) How reliable is that?!?

His entire corpus of information about the apostles and their eventual death is based on legends he heard from others, in other words based on hearsay.

Third century Church historian Eusebius of Cesarea refers to Papias as "dimwitted." The fascinating thing about reading the Church history is that hearsay (oral "tradition") was the source of the day from day one.

Irenaeus (180 AD), the man to whom the Church is so indebted, entirely relied on "oral tradition." Yet, one must wonder how credible is his information given the fact that in his book, Against Heresies, he states that Christ was 50 years old when he died (A.H., ii, 22)! Or when he equates Mary with the Holy Spirit (he refers to her as advocata, a Latin term for Paraclete).

Trouble is, how reliable is his very book? He died at the end of the 2nd century, and the earliest copy of his book that wen have is from the end of the 4th! Two hundred years later! And a Latin translation at that...his original Greek text exists only in fragments.

Without copyright laws and with books being copied only by hand, we cannot reliably claim that what's in his book was also in his original work.

Legends, hearsay, myths, copyists errors, doctrinal changes in texts, etc. make all these sources, including the earliest copies of the NT, subject to corruption and errors.

When biblical scholars say the Bible is 99% in agreement with the "originals," that is simply untrue. They are in agreement with the earliest copies of copies we have.

The majority of those "originals" go back to later centuries, a few late or middle 2nd century, and only one or two to the early part of the 2nd century, and they contain only a few verses, and there is not a single copy of the NT that goes back to the first century, let alone a true original!

If you just think for one moment how the copies were made it becomes immediately obvious that no one could have preserved the original text. If you consider for a moment that some text was lost, it becomes obvious that Bibles are not complete.

If you consider for a moment that the decision which books will be included in the Bible was made by the Catholic Church 400 years after Christ, it becomes obvious that it was not something God did but men, their tradition, doctrine, etc.

If God put together the Bible, as so many believe, I think he would have done a much better job, imo.

[kosta50]

The Catholic Church is not the only Catholic tradition. The Eastern (Orthodox) Church maintains dietary restrictions (fasting 180 days a year), and uses regular bread instead of wafers (a Latin innovation). You can't use the Latin Church alone (which has been lost its Patristic roots and traditions long ago under Frankish influence) as the poster boy of Christian tradition. You need to learn more about the Eastern side of the Church.

[kosta50]

That is simply incorrect: Judaism
In the Old Testament, the word 'Pardis' (a transliteration of the Persian word) occurs in Song 4:13, Eccl.2:5, and Neh. 2:8 meaning 'park'

In pre-apocalyoptic Judaism of the 2nd century BC the was used to mean garden or park, and it is borrowed form the Persian word of the same meaning.

As your source admits, it eventually became associated with the garden of Eden, (still meaning the garden or park), i.e. the paradis of Eden, and only so in the apocryphal works. Surely you don't consider the Apocalypse of Moses a genuine biblical text! It is a latter-day Christian work written in Greek based on some Jewish legends.

In the apocalypses and in the Talmud the word is used of the Garden of Eden and its heavenly prototype

But you are using this out of context. Apocalypses are writings of the Essenes and are not considered mainline Judaism, and Talmud is a Christian-era rabbinic work, heavily influenced by Platonic beliefs.

When I speak of Judaism, I speak of pre-Christian, pre-Babylonian, genuine Judaism. It seems to me that most people have no idea that Judaism evolved and is not what it used to be in beginning (i.e. the Torah Judaism). Today, Judaism is a Pharisaical branch of Judaism that evolved in the Christian world, heavily influenced by mysticism, legends, Platonism ,etc.

When Jesus allegedly spoke to the good thief, there was no Talmud, and last time I checked he wasn't an Essene either.. Talmud doesn't come into existence until about 200 years after Christ and isn't completed until about 500 years after him. You can't just spill facts without their context.

See also, IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL - Jewish Encyclopeida. The ideas of the immortality of the soul and the abode of the blessed came much earlier to Jewish thought than you are portraying

No it didn't. let me quote form your own link:

[necromancy] was discouraged and suppressed by prophet and lawgiver as antagonistic to the belief in Yhwh, the God of life, the Ruler of heaven and earth, whose reign was not extended over Sheol until post-exilic times (Ps. xvi. 10, xlix. 16, cxxxix. 8).

In other words, genuine Judaism prohibited belief in immortal soul. The key word here is post-exilic, after the exile. In other words when Persial freed Israel form Babylonian captivity and influenced Judaism with Zoroastrianism, c. 5th century BC.

It seems to me some key words go right by you, or you don;t read the whole thing.

As a matter of fact, eternal life was ascribed exclusively to God and to celestial beings who "eat of the tree of life and live forever" (Gen. iii. 22, Hebr.), whereas man by being driven out of the Garden of Eden was deprived of the opportunity of eating the food of immortality

Duh!

It is the Psalmist's implicit faith in God's omnipotence and omnipresence that leads him to the hope of immortality

It was only in connection with the Messianic hope that, under the influence of Persian ideas, the belief in resurrection lent to the disembodied soul a continuous existence (Isa. xxv. 6-8; Dan. xii. 2

Messianic hope is a latter-day development in Judaism. In fact it can be traced tom a VERY late development and influence of pagan Greek thought

The belief in the immortality of the soul came to the Jews from contact with Greek thought and chiefly through the philosophy of Plato, its principal exponent, who was led to it through Orphic and Eleusinian mysteries in which Babylonian and Egyptian views were strangely blended, as the Semitic name "Minos"

So, today's Jewish belief in immortality or resurrection is a later development (limited only to Pharisaical Judaism, the form of Judaism that survived and morphed into rabbinic Judaism after 70 AD and the second Exile that produced Christian Era Talmud), and can be traced to Persian, Greek and Egyptian origins, none of which have anything to do with the genuine Mosaic Judaism.

[count-your-change]

Adown is used at Exodus 23:17. Who does it refer to there except to YHWH? Adown is used at Joshua 3:11. Who does it refer to except YHWH?
In both instances part of a title.

So adown can be used either as a title or simply as meaning master as Sarah said of her “master”.

“So, in that context, the Levite priest, who is supposed to sing the Psalm liturgically, is saying “The LORD said to my master (David): sit at My right hand...”. It's hard to believe that Jesus would have misunderstood this linguistically and contextually as it appears from Mat 22.”

The Lord said to David's master, “Thou [art] a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.” (vs. 4).

No Levite priest ever called David “.. a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek”, nor did David refer to himself as such.

It's not Jesus who has trouble understanding who is being called Lord at Ps 110.

[MarkBsnr]

Tangerine marmalade? Never tried it. I just might make some next time I make marmalade. Been so busy lately, that I haven’t even made my habanero and molasses barbeque sauce for quite some time...

[MarkBsnr]

Is the Church to be a Church of sinners or a Church of saints?

Interesting question. The "church" is the spiritual body of Christ, and because of that, it IS a church of saints since we are sanctified by the blood of Jesus Christ. The "Church", I assume by that you mean the Roman Catholic Church, IS an assembly of both saints and sinners and so is every other organized Christian assembly. There is a distinction, then.

Romans 3: 21 6 But now 7 the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, though testified to by the law and the prophets, 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction; 23 all have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God. 24 They are justified freely by his grace through the redemption in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as an expiation, 8 through faith, by his blood, to prove his righteousness because of the forgiveness of sins previously committed, 26 through the forbearance of God--to prove his righteousness in the present time, that he might be righteous and justify the one who has faith in Jesus.

There are some important points in Paul's statements here.

1. All have sinned and ARE deprived of the Glory of God.

This is present tense. If you are sanctified, then you are not a sinner and are not deprived of the Glory of God. But Paul says all, and he means all. You, me, and every last human being on Earth.

2. Sins previously committed.

You are not forgiven sins that you have yet to commit. The justification through faith is now, but your future justification and future sinning and future forgiveness (or not), is in the future. This is the meaning of the perseverance of the saints. It is as the example of the labourers:

Matthew 20: 1 1 "The kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out at dawn to hire laborers for his vineyard. 2 After agreeing with them for the usual daily wage, he sent them into his vineyard. 3 Going out about nine o'clock, he saw others standing idle in the marketplace, 4 2 and he said to them, 'You too go into my vineyard, and I will give you what is just.' 5 So they went off. (And) he went out again around noon, and around three o'clock, and did likewise. 6 Going out about five o'clock, he found others standing around, and said to them, 'Why do you stand here idle all day?' 7 They answered, 'Because no one has hired us.' He said to them, 'You too go into my vineyard.' 8 3 When it was evening the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, 'Summon the laborers and give them their pay, beginning with the last and ending with the first.' 9 When those who had started about five o'clock came, each received the usual daily wage. 10 So when the first came, they thought that they would receive more, but each of them also got the usual wage. 11 And on receiving it they grumbled against the landowner, 12 saying, 'These last ones worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us, who bore the day's burden and the heat.' 13 He said to one of them in reply, 'My friend, I am not cheating you. 4 Did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage? 14 5 Take what is yours and go. What if I wish to give this last one the same as you? 15 (Or) am I not free to do as I wish with my own money? Are you envious because I am generous?' 16 6 Thus, the last will be first, and the first will be last." 17

The wage is the salvation of God; there are some that walk in His ways all the days of their lives, there are some that come to Him in the end; the final reward is the same. You talk about casting out - something that should be reserved only as a last resort. What did Jesus do?

Mark 2: 15 While he was at table in his house, 9 many tax collectors and sinners sat with Jesus and his disciples; for there were many who followed him. 16 10 Some scribes who were Pharisees saw that he was eating with sinners and tax collectors and said to his disciples, "Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?" 17 Jesus heard this and said to them (that), "Those who are well do not need a physician, 11 but the sick do. I did not come to call the righteous but sinners."

The Church is a hospital for the sick.

Luke 15: 1 1 The tax collectors and sinners were all drawing near to listen to him, 2 but the Pharisees and scribes began to complain, saying, "This man welcomes sinners and eats with them." 3 So to them he addressed this parable. 4 "What man among you having a hundred sheep and losing one of them would not leave the ninety-nine in the desert and go after the lost one until he finds it? 5 And when he does find it, he sets it on his shoulders with great joy 6 and, upon his arrival home, he calls together his friends and neighbors and says to them, 'Rejoice with me because I have found my lost sheep.' 7 I tell you, in just the same way there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous people who have no need of repentance.

The Church is called to minister to the sinners. And just who are the sinners?

Luke 19: 1 1 He came to Jericho and intended to pass through the town. 2 Now a man there named Zacchaeus, who was a chief tax collector and also a wealthy man, 3 was seeking to see who Jesus was; but he could not see him because of the crowd, for he was short in stature. 4 So he ran ahead and climbed a sycamore tree in order to see Jesus, who was about to pass that way. 5 When he reached the place, Jesus looked up and said to him, "Zacchaeus, come down quickly, for today I must stay at your house." 6 And he came down quickly and received him with joy. 7 When they all saw this, they began to grumble, saying, "He has gone to stay at the house of a sinner." 8 But Zacchaeus stood there and said to the Lord, "Behold, half of my possessions, Lord, I shall give to the poor, and if I have extorted anything from anyone I shall repay it four times over." 9 2 And Jesus said to him, "Today salvation has come to this house because this man too is a descendant of Abraham. 10 3 For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save what was lost."

We are all sinners and Jesus has come to save all of us lost people.

Luke 9: 51 23 24 25 When the days for his being taken up were fulfilled, he resolutely determined to journey to Jerusalem, 52 26 and he sent messengers ahead of him. On the way they entered a Samaritan village to prepare for his reception there, 53 but they would not welcome him because the destination of his journey was Jerusalem. 54 When the disciples James and John saw this they asked, "Lord, do you want us to call down fire from heaven to consume them?" 55 Jesus turned and rebuked them, 56 and they journeyed to another village.

Jesus rebuked them because they wanted to punish the wicked in this Samaritan village who rejected Him.

So The Comedian's comments about Pelosi, Kerry, and Kennedy (moot point there, I know) was that their assembly took no such action and because of that neglect, other members could and do think the moral teachings of the church are optional. Does this explain better?

How do you know what actions were and are being taken? The teachings of the Church are clear. If we throw out Pelosi, for instance because of her public sinning and exhortation and incentive to sin, where do we stop? Since there is no human being on earth, not one, that is without sin, there'd be nobody left in the Church, would there?

You have said that you are sanctified. How can you be sanctified if you are in sin? Nothing unclean can enter the Kingdom of Heaven. If you are in sin, then you are unclean. If you are not in sin, then you must either already be in Heaven, or else God Himself.

[MarkBsnr]

Mark, harmony does not have to be a two-way street. The God of the Bible demands obedience. We see that in the OT, we see it in Mary, and in Jesus. The Holy Spirit leads, and men follow. It's a one way street.

Obedience in return for salvation. God wants obedience, even coerced obedience, but does not frogmarch us.

The opposite of harmony is discord, disobedience, rebellion.

Discord, yes; no to disobedience and to rebellion. These may develop from a lack of harmony, but they are not antonyms of harmony.

God does not force you, but if you come to God then God will always be in charge. And you will always be the follower.

True, but we are speaking of the human and divine natures of Jesus.

[kosta50]

Bingo!...Existing in the form of God denotes pre-existence, obviously

Not at all. Paul is speaking of the resurrected Christ, not the pre-incarnate Christ. That much is obvious not only from Philippians 2 but from Paul's theology in general.

More importantly, Paul himself dispels any notion that hyparcho, used in this fashion, means pre-existence.

ἀνὴρ μὲν γὰρ οὐκ ὀφείλει κατακαλύπτεσθαι τὴν κεφαλήν εἰκὼν καὶ δόξα θεοῦ ὑπάρχων [present, active participle] γυνὴ δὲ δόξα ἀνδρός ἐστιν [1 Cor 11:7]

KJV translates this as

For a man indeed ought not to cover [his] head, forasmuch as he is [sic] the image and glory of God.

But KJV is not alone in this fraud. The only version of the Bible I could find that translates this correctly is Young's Literal Translation.

for a man, indeed, ought not to cover the head, being the image and glory of God, and a woman is the glory of a man,

Cleverly, or deceitfully, take your pick, the translators of KJV and others versions chose to translate the same tense (active present participle) differently, to avoid the pre-existential conflict between verses such as Philippians 2:6 and 1 Corinthians 11:7.

This is the level and extent of manipulation the biblical text has been subjected to in order to create "concordance." It is obvious that otherwise verses such as 1 Corinthians 11:7 and Philippians 2:6 would have been a doctrinal stumbling block if not a killer.

This also explains why it is no wonder that Gnostics loved Paul so much, especially Valentius and Marcion. He spoke their language because he himself, by the way he wrote, must have harbored substantial Gnostic beliefs.

Of course, none of this would ever be evident to your average bumpkin English Bible reader. The powers to be made sure of that. Ignorance is bliss.

[kosta50]

What is sin, Mark? Is sinniong not discord with God? It is also not a rebellion against him? Submission is the only “clean” path to sinlessness. Obedience is not conditional. You don’t say I will obey God if he saves me. If you do, that’s not Chrisitanity. Christianity is “thy will be done.”

[kosta50]

Adown is used at Exodus 23:17. Who does it refer to there except to YHWH?

No, the verse reads: "Three times in the year all thy males shall appear before the Lord (master) GOD (YHWH)."

This is just a matter of style. The Hebrew text qualifies the word adoun as being lest there be no confusion. Thus the text reads "appear before the master, the LORD." or "LORD the master."

The fact that they have to qualify adoun shows that it cannot be used by itself as the substitute name for the divine. Come on, this is not so difficult.

Adown is used at Joshua 3:11. Who does it refer to except YHWH?

It refers to God by it is not used as his name. It says:

Behold, the ark of the covenant of the master [aoun] of all the earth passeth over before you into Jordan

Adoun by itself can be any master, and when used alone it never means God. If God is referred to as the master it is always qualified.

The Lord said to David's master, “Thou [art] a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.” (vs. 4).No Levite priest ever called David “.. a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek”, nor did David refer to himself as such

Who was David's master? David himself was anointed. It was David who was hoping to and laid down the foundations for the Temple but never actually saw it finished. Yet he is the founder of the Temple and the Temple bore his name.

Who sat on the throne of David if not David? And who started the Second Temple if not David? And was he not anointed by God? And what are Psalms if not liturgical chants intended to be chanted by Levite priests in David's Temple?

Besides, Jesus never mentions verse 4.

[kosta50]

with morph meaining the essential attributes as shown in the form, i.e., the essence his nature

That's not what morphe means. It means the external appearance, or the "form by which one strikes the vision."

External appearance does not represent the essence or nature. The definition given by your source corresponds not to morphe but to ousia.

Apparently Paul believed that God was visible and had a form. Nothing could be farther from the Jewish or even Christian belief.

Or he was just saying that knowing the Greeks believed it.

[RnMomof7]

I, I mean just what I said: One cannot understand God's word without His spirit, the Pharisees being an example. Make of it what you will.

thats because Catholics do not understand what Sola Scriptura is

[RnMomof7]

Sola scriptura does not eliminate tradition..

[RnMomof7]

Your weak response could be given for any contradiction.
If Christ is within us at all times, He cannot then be received additionally during the Lord's Supper.
Either/or.
Rome teaches error and contradiction.

Do not confuse them with the facts..Their doctrine also implies that the spiritual is of less benefit than the physical..

"Christ in you the Hope of Glory"..is not speaking of communion..it is speaking of the indwelling Christ....

Either you are saved and therefore have the indwelling Spirit 24/7 or you are unsaved and looking for quick fills of emotional spirituality..

[small voice in the wilderness]

Well said. And has so often been said “Salvation is like pregnancy. You either ARE or you AREN’T.”