Question on John 19:30

[Arch Stanton]

I understand the erroneous teaching. Unfortunately, it is extra biblical.

The Church came first and since you have not shown through the bible that the bible is the only truth, you have a false premise.

 

[Alive]

The Church came first and since you have not shown through the bible that the bible is the only truth, you have a false premise.

I will leave this conversation, now.

 

[Eleanor]

If Jesus is commanding the apostles to poiete (offer) the Eucharist, then he intends for it to be a sacrifice. [CA]

And I'm going with:

Heb 7:27 - He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.

Jn 19:30 - "It is finished." (Jn 4:34, 17:4, Lk 12:50)

 

[Arch Stanton]

And I'm going with:

Heb 7:27 - He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.

Jn 19:30 - "It is finished." (Jn 4:34, 17:4, Lk 12:50)

Your understanding of 'It is finished' goes against what St. Paul says.

 

[Eleanor]

Your understanding of 'It is finished' goes against what St. Paul says.

Assertion without demonstration is assertion without merit.

 

[Arch Stanton]

Assertion without demonstration is assertion without merit.

St. Paul's letter to the Romans disagrees with you.

 

[David1701]

Why do Catholic priests continue to offer Jesus as a sacrificial victim when he said: “it is finished.”​

John 19:30

​

​

It's the devil's way of defaming the Lord, whilst superficially appearing to honour him.

 

[Carbon]

Why do Catholic priests continue to offer Jesus as a sacrificial victim when he said: “it is finished.”​

John 19:30

In the Year 1215 at the Fourth Lateran Council, Transubstantiation became an official doctrine of the RCC. This was confirmed by the Council of Trent, which also asserted that the Lord's Supper was a propitiatory sacrifice for sin. These are the two primary and supremely important elements of the RCC's teaching on the eucharist - Transubstantiation and sacrifice.

The RCC teaches that when the priest utters the words of consecration, the bread and wine are changed into the literal body and blood of Christ. He is then offered to God on the altar as a propitiatory sacrifice for sin.

@Arch Stanton what do you think so far? Do you agree? Am I on track?
If you disagree and do not believe I am, you should probably look into these things as I guarantee you I am correct.

 

[David1701]

St. Paul's letter to the Romans disagrees with you.

He said, making an assertion without any substantiating evidence.

 

[Carbon]

It's the devil's way of defaming the Lord, whilst superficially appearing to honour him.

Yes, the doctrine of Transubststuation was started by man, not Jesus, not the apostles.

 

[Eleanor]

St. Paul's letter to the Romans disagrees with you.

See post #45.

 

[Carbon]

The Didache, or, Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, is included in the collection of the works known as the Apostolic Fathers and is one of the oldest documents from the immediate post-apstolic age that we possess. It is an early manual of Church discipline dated from between the late first century and 140 A.D., and it simply refers to the Lord's Supper as spiritual food and drink. There is no indication that the elements are transformed in any way. Ignatius of Antioch (martyred 110 A.D.), on the other hand, speaks of the eucherist as the body and blood of Christ which communicates eternal life.
Justin Martyr (100 - 165 A.D.) refers to the eucharistic elements as being more than common bread and wine, in that when they are consecrated they become the body of Jesus; yet in his Dialogue with Trypho, he wrote that the elements were bread and wine which were inaugurated by Christ as a memorial and remembrance of his body and blood.
So while he spoke of a change in the elements, it seems that in his conception, the elements still remain, in essence, bread and wine.
Justin, Irenaeus of Lyons (140-202 A.D.) clearly believed the bread and wine became the body and blood of Jesus at the consecration, but he also stated that the elements were composed of two realities - one earthly and one heavenly, or spiritual. He implied that at the consecration, though the elements are no longer common bread and wine, they do not lose the nature of being bread and wine.


William Webster.

 

[Carbon]

St. Paul's letter to the Romans disagrees with you.

Where exactly?

 

[Carbon]

@Arch Stanton So, the ECF's arent even with the RCC.

Tertullian (155 / 160-240/ 250 A.D.) Spoke of the bread and wine in the eucharist as symbols or figures which represent the body and blood of Christ. He specifically stated that these were not the literal body and blood of the Lord.
When Christ said, "This is my body," Tertullian maintained that Jesus was speaking figuratively and that he consecrated the wine in memory of his blood (Against Marcion 3.19).

 

[Carbon]

Clement of Alexandria (150-211 / 216 A.D.) Also called the bread and wine symbols of the body and blood of Christ, and taught that the communicant received not the physical but the spiritual life of Christ.
Origin (185-253/254 A.D.), likewise, speaks in distinctively spiritual and allegorical terms when referring to the eucharist.

@Arch Stanton maybe you should reconsider?

 

[Eleanor]

St. Paul's letter to the Romans disagrees with you.

See post #45.

 

[Carbon]

Why do Catholic priests continue to offer Jesus as a sacrificial victim when he said: “it is finished.”​

John 19:30

The Mass. There is no mistaking it. Fundamentalists do not like the Mass, and they like it even less that they otherwise might because they misunderstand what it is.
The RCC teaches that the Holy Mass is an expiatory (sin-removing) sacrifice, in which the Son of God is actually sacrificed anew on the cross.

Keating (an RC apologist)

Vatican II, puts it this way:
At the last supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic Sacrifices of his body and blood. He did this in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the centuries until he should come again, and so to entrust to his beloved spouse, the Church, a memorial of his death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a paschal banquet in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given.

@Arch Stanton to be fair I added the RC apologist and Vatican II

 

[Carbon]

Why do Catholic priests continue to offer Jesus as a sacrificial victim when he said: “it is finished.”​

John 19:30

John presents Jesus' declaration here using the Greek word tetelestai. Archaeologists have found this word inscribed on records to indicate debts which have been paid, or obligations which have been met. That which Jesus was sent to accomplish—an atonement for sin on behalf of mankind (2 Corinthians 5:21)—is entirely and fully completed in this moment: "It is finished." No further work needs to be done, nor can it be done (Titus 3:5). There is no room for other actions, rituals, sacraments, sacrifices, or payments to accomplish salvation (1 Peter 3:18; Hebrews 10:12–14).

The fact that Jesus is said to "give up his spirit" is significant. Matthew and Luke make similar observations (Matthew 27:50; Luke 23:46). From a physical standpoint, Jesus' body has suffered fatal injury. And yet, His death is entirely an act of His own will. That included His willingness to be born into human form (John 1:14), to submit to God's will (Matthew 26:39), and to allow His own arrest and execution (Philippians 2:8). Whether literally, or as a statement of agreement, Scripture clarifies that Jesus is "giving up" His life to God the Father—it is not being stripped away from Him by force (John 10:17–18).

 

[Carbon]

It is finished - The sufferings and agonies in redeeming man are over. The work long contemplated, long promised, long expected by prophets and saints, is done. The toils in the ministry, the persecutions and mockeries, and the pangs of the garden and the cross, are ended, and man is redeemed. What a wonderful declaration was this! How full of consolation to man! And how should this dying declaration of the Saviour reach every heart and affect every soul!

Barnes Notes on the Bible

 

[Eleanor]

The Mass. There is no mistaking it. Fundamentalists do not like the Mass, and they like it even less that they otherwise might because they misunderstand what it is.
The RCC teaches that the Holy Mass is an expiatory (sin-removing) sacrifice, in which the Son of God is actually sacrificed anew on the cross. Keating (an RC apologist)
Vatican II, puts it this way:
At the last supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic Sacrifices of his body and blood. He did this in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the centuries until he should come again, and so to entrust to his beloved spouse, the Church, a memorial of his death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a paschal banquet in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given.
@Arch Stanton to be fair I added the RC apologist and Vatican II

It's the "perpetuate the sacrifice" that contradicts Jesus statement that the atonement "is finished," including the sacrifice.

You can have all the memorial or remembrance you want of the Civil War, but it is finished, it was won by the North and it stays won by the North, which victory a memorial or remembrance does not perpetuate, but simply recalls in memory.