We are the Offering and Sacrifice to God

a reply to: markosity1973

398 In particular Jesus' redemptive death fulfils Isaiah's prophecy of the suffering Servant. 399 Indeed Jesus himself explained the meaning of his life and death in the light of God's suffering Servant. 400 After his Resurrection he gave this interpretation of the Scriptures to the disciples at Emmaus . . .

There is no "In particular".
What was already quoted from Paul was all he wrote on the matter.
What is being said in this Catechism is additional theorizing by theologians.
It has nothing to do with biblical teachings.
We are redeemed, figuratively speaking, from having to follow the the old written Mosaic Law.
See Thayer's Lexicon for Redemption

everywhere in the N. T. metaphorically
biblehub.com...

which means that it is not in the New Testament meant to be understood literally.
We don't know what Jesus said exactly on the road to Emmaus.
All that is recorded was that he told the disciples that he had to "suffer these things" according to scripture.

a reply to: markosity1973

God required a ransom. That ransom was Jesus' blood, his death was needed to fulfill Isaiah's prophecy. It was a sacrifice by any other name.

I do not deny that Jesus' death was a sacrifice, but in the modern, ordinary sense of the word.
Jesus sacrificed himself by coming to earth and suffering, when he could have just stayed in Heaven and avoided all of that.
God sacrificed His son, when He could have just kept him next to Him, safe in Heaven.
What I am denying is that Jesus was or is a sacrifice as in an animal sacrifice on an altar to appease some angry deity.

The part I've never bonded with is the need for spilled blood for covenants. Its a personal thing that's all, because Judaism, Christianity and Islam all have blood letting as part of them in one way or another.

Oh. How sad.
So, just to fit in with all the wrong religions, then.

originally posted by: jmdewey60
a reply to: markosity1973

398 In particular Jesus' redemptive death fulfils Isaiah's prophecy of the suffering Servant. 399 Indeed Jesus himself explained the meaning of his life and death in the light of God's suffering Servant. 400 After his Resurrection he gave this interpretation of the Scriptures to the disciples at Emmaus . . .

There is no "In particular".
What was already quoted from Paul was all he wrote on the matter.
What is being said in this Catechism is additional theorizing by theologians.
It has nothing to do with biblical teachings.
We are redeemed, figuratively speaking, from having to follow the the old written Mosaic Law.
See Thayer's Lexicon for Redemption

everywhere in the N. T. metaphorically
biblehub.com...

which means that it is not in the New Testament meant to be understood literally. We don't know what Jesus said exactly on the road to Emmaus.
All that is recorded was that he told the disciples that he had to "suffer these things" according to scripture.

We know what Our Lord DID on the road to Emmaus in His time with the two disciples, the Gospel says it. When you see "break bread", "breaking bread" repeatedly stated in the Gospel, this IS the Holy Eucharist. Historically, Ignatius, 3rd Bishop of Antioch who as a boy knew the Beloved Apostle John. Ignatius used the word Eucharist for the first time, the same term used today. Eucharist means giving thanks.

If you can remember one thing, God is going to enlighten the entire world dramatically very soon. Some believe
2017, only God knows for sure. He is going to show all peoples the faith and warn of the anti-Christ. To save souls!!!
Oh, the love and mercy of God. Believe now in the Our Lord's presence in the Eucharist, Ignatius did, he knew John. Seee....

Luke 24:28-35
And they drew nigh to the town, whither they were going: and he made as though he would go farther. [29] But they constrained him; saying: Stay with us, because it is towards evening, and the day is now far spent. And he went in with them. [30] And it came to pass, whilst he was at table with them, he took bread, and blessed, and brake, and gave to them. [31] And their eyes were opened, and they knew him: and he vanished out of their sight. [32] And they said one to the other: Was not our heart burning within us, whilst he spoke in this way, and opened to us the scriptures? [33] And rising up, the same hour, they went back to Jerusalem: and they found the eleven gathered together, and those that were staying with them, [34] Saying: The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon. Saying: The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon. [35] And they told what things were done in the way; and how they knew him in the breaking of the bread.

originally posted by: jmdewey60
a reply to: colbe

Jim accepts the Catholic Canon but tells you Roman Catholicism is not the true faith.

You just have a skewed idea of what "Catholic" means.
Whatever is good since John the Baptist is Catholic, while everything else is "Protestant".

I've shared before, you see in Matthew, Jesus named Peter leader of the faith, . . .

Jesus taught not to be called rabbi or father, and not to be the lord over others.

. . . there is one Church, Jesus used the singular in Matthew 16:18.

There is one church in the spirit, and there is one leader, Jesus himself.

Back to the old "what does "Catholic" mean...

Avoiding (tactic) commenting on the Truth, the Canon of Scripture was compiled by the Roman Catholic Church which was first decided with his God given authority by Pope Damasus in 382 A.D.

How many times does this have to be explained Jim? If you look in the written Word, Our Lord Himself
in referring to holy men chosen by God, He and the Apostles in several verses calls them "FATHER."

John 8:56
Abraham your father rejoiced that he might see my day: he saw it, and was glad.

When Our Lord said call "no man father" He was using hyperbole. Like in Matt 5:30...."cut off your hand."

The Protestant excuse to deny the ONE faith to say Jesus NEVER established a visible Church (singular), it was a "spiritual" Church. LOL if it weren't sad, Protestantism's flimsy rebuttal. There is no ONE Church in Protestantism, everyone is their own pope. Think about it, a new Protestant sect is started, every week since Luther split from the faith, October 31, 1517.

Our Lord named Peter (Matt 16:18), it is historical, to be leader of His Church on earth. St. Peter's Basilica in Rome, why did they come up with that name?

a reply to: jmdewey60
Markosity said:
The part I've never bonded with is the need for spilled blood for covenants. Its a personal thing that's all, because Judaism, Christianity and Islam all have blood letting as part of them in one way or another.
I said:
Oh. How sad.
So, just to fit in with all the wrong religions, then.
-----------------------------
OK, the comment by me I just quoted from my earlier post was a mistake.
I read his comment too fast, apparently, and missed the qualifying "never" in his sentence, so my response is completely inappropriate to him, and would apply to someone who did "bond" to the idea of blood sacrifice.
Looking at it again today, I should say that I agree with Markosity, in that the blood is something that doesn't fit with modern thinking, but goes along with more primitive and superstitious thinking about the qualities of blood.

a reply to: colbe

He and the Apostles in several verses calls them "FATHER."

Abraham was literally, biologically, their father, or ancestor.

The Protestant excuse to deny the ONE faith . . .

Protestants do not deny that.
What they do deny is one person's claim of a monopoly of that faith.
Paul said there is one God and one lord.
You have another lord, the vicar, or anti-christ.