Arch Stanton
Well-known member
everything.... once one understands what Christ saidProves nothing!!!
everything.... once one understands what Christ saidProves nothing!!!
In that new and perfect tabernacle, no earthly priests are serving. And you will find no such information in Hebrews. Christ is both our High Priest and our substitutionary sacrifice.Jesus thinks you do, He is the high priest. High Priests have lower priests else there is no "High Priest"
But Christ, being come an high priest of the good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hand, that is, not of this creation [Hebrews 9:11]If there is a new and perfect tabernacle then there must be priests to serve that tabernacle else you have nothing.
As said, your claim has implications for 1 Tim. 2:3–4 as well. Which I will not be slow to remind you of whenever unbiblical notions like "free will" pop up in these discussions.
That post contains no evidence for your claim. You just enumerate a bunch of NT writings.post 308 ?
Yes, what He was sent to do was also finished by Him. That is, to redeem His people by His blood, to atone for their sins, to sanctify them, and to perfect them.we had this discussion before... you are assuming what Christ meant with the words 'it is finished'. Romans does not agree with that
I'm not a Calvinist -- no tulip hereAs said, your claim has implications for 1 Tim. 2:3–4 as well. Which I will not be slow to remind you of whenever unbiblical notions like "free will" pop up in these discussions.
not according to St. PaulYes, what He was sent to do was also finished by Him. That is, to redeem His people by His blood, to atone for their sins, to sanctify them, and to perfect them.
Of course not, but you have just invalidated that passage as counterargument to the TULIP.I'm not a Calvinist -- no tulip here
Paul does not teach unfinished redemption.not according to St. Paul
Could all mean a great amount or not?Of course not, but you have just invalidated that passage as counterargument to the TULIP.
and Christ was raised for our justificationPaul does not teach unfinished redemption.
It could. It can also mean "of all kinds," as it does in 1 Tim. 2:3–4.Could all mean a great amount or not?
Indeed. No one was justified on the cross. We are justified by faith in our formerly crucified and now living Savior.and Christ was raised for our justification
and if Christ had not been raised, your faith is vain, ...Indeed. No one was justified on the cross. We are justified by faith in our formerly crucified and now living Savior.
If Christ had not been raised, then our presumed Savior was a fake and there is no hope of a resurrection for us either. It is still a fact that Christ purchased us with His blood (Acts 20:28; Rev. 5:9), atoned for our sins through the shedding of His blood (Rom. 3:25), sanctified us (Heb. 10:10) and perfected us (Heb. 10:14) by His sacrificial death. Those acts were indeed finished.and if Christ had not been raised, your faith is vain, ...
so I wouldn't say 'finished' before the resurrection
Yeah, let us ignore the finality and efficacy of the cross of Christ and focus on your worthless "Eucharist" instead.The fourth cup may be finished though ?
so not finished until He was raised.... AMEN!If Christ had not been raised, then our presumed Savior was a fake and there is no hope of a resurrection for us either. It is still a fact that Christ purchased us with His blood (Acts 20:28; Rev. 5:9), atoned for our sins through the shedding of His blood (Rom. 3:25), sanctified us (Heb. 10:10) and perfected us (Heb. 10:14) by His sacrificial death. Those acts were indeed finished.
Looks like you have a love/hate relationshipYeah, let us ignore the finality and efficacy of the cross of Christ and focus on your worthless "Eucharist" instead.
Finished when He said that it was finished. Funny that language can be that simple and straightforward.so not finished until He was raised.... AMEN!
With regard to Catholic doctrine, only contempt.Looks like you have a love/hate relationship
and yet you don't understand Him.... ?Finished when He said that it was finished. Funny that language can be that simple and straightforward.
Luke 23:34 ?With regard to Catholic doctrine, only contempt.
You don't need to explain reality to most people.If you don't have time to provide evidence for your bogus claims, then you shouldn't make your bogus claims in the first place.
I said "most favored", "beloved"; you compared her to the "greatness" of St. John the Evangelist; ergo conflation.No, I didn't do any such thing.
Why are you trying to make this about me, instead of defending your bogus claims? Clearly you have the time to do so, if you wanted.
How would she have ever known sin if she was justified at conception. a singular gift.So Mary was a sinner.
Thanks for the admission.
To bear false witness one must first holdup a falsehood. Your denial of Mary's state of "most favored" is denial, and is in Scripture.I don't.
Bearing false witness is a sin.
You need to repent.
Again, why are you trying to make this about me?
Oh, it's so you don't have to prove your bogus claims.... is an unBiblical figment of your imagination.
If it's a figment of imagination, then I'm right there with the Early Fathers. Thanks for compliment.UnBiblical.
It couldn't be referring to original sin, rather it was referring to actual sin. Because the except is Elias, right? Even if you won't admit it, right? But then you would be having an Apostle of Christ calling His mother a sinner. Well, if that ain't a howdy do?Nope.
It refers to every single human.
I believe Christ.Why don't you believe Paul?
Rom. 3:23 for ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
So yes, that includes Elias.
Of course not.
Right here buckaroo.But why are you running away from your false claims about Mary, in order to change the subject and talk about Elias?
I said "most favored", "beloved";
Your denial of Mary's state of "most favored" is denial, and is in Scripture.
If it's a figment of imagination, then I'm right there with the Early Fathers. Thanks for compliment.
It couldn't be referring to original sin, rather it was referring to actual sin. Because the except is Elias, right?
Even if you won't admit it, right? But then you would be having an Apostle of Christ calling His mother a sinner. Well, if that ain't a howdy do?