The other "only begotten" son of God..., page 3

posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 03:22 AM

link

reply to post by Augustine62

This confusion, as evidenced in the starting of this thread, is why ONLY the Catholic Church--being the Church Christ founded--has proper authority to interpret Sacred Scripture... not just any yokel off the street.

Hmmm... so, only the Catholic church should be interpreting scripture, eh?
Ok.... I cant wait to see what the protestants have to say about this.

signed,
a yokel off the street.

edit on 7-10-2012 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)

sk0rpi0n

posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 03:23 AM

link

reply to post by Deetermined

LOL! I'm sorry, I had to laugh because the first thing I thought of when you asked this question was the "one like the Son of Man" that sat on the white cloud in your other thread!

And here we go again...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Klassified

posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 08:20 AM

link

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

It's not just the Christians though. If memory serves, orthodox Jews also interpret this verse as prophetic of a coming messiah. Just not Jesus. So John 3:16 is the least of their concern.

Klassified

posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 08:23 AM

link

reply to post by Augustine62

This confusion, as evidenced in the starting of this thread, is why ONLY the Catholic Church--being the Church Christ founded--has proper authority to interpret Sacred Scripture... not just any yokel off the street.

Now this is funny, I don't care who you are.

lonewolf19792000

posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 08:48 AM

link

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

Jesus is the Melchizidek psalm 110 is speaking about.

I'm hearing from another Christian here that Jesus is not the Melchizedek. So who's right this time?

From what I see, the traits of the Melchizedek don't apply to Jesus.
Like I said earlier...

1."without father or mother" (we know Jesus' mother)
2. "without genealogy" (Jesus genealogy is outlined in Luke 3:23-38)
3. "without beginning of days" (Jesus' days began after his birth)
4. "without end of life" (Jesus' life "ended" with his crucifixion)

The Son has no mother, he existed before his human incarnation. Jesus' life didn't end with his crucifiction, thats when it began again. I told you in the other thread this world is the world of the dead, he had to die to himself to come here and die for us. and then he took up his life again.

Psalm 93:1-2

1The Lord reigns, He is clothed with majesty;
The Lord has clothed and girded Himself with strength;
Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved.
2 Your throne is established from of old;
You are from everlasting.

[Son of God speaking below and his Father with him as ONE]

Psalm 45:11-13

11 Thus says the Lord, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker:

“Ask Me about the things to come concerning My sons,
And you shall commit to Me the work of My hands.
12 “It is I who made the earth, and created man upon it.
I stretched out the heavens with My hands
And I ordained all their host.
13 “I have aroused him in righteousness
And I will make all his ways smooth;
He will build My city and will let My exiles go free,
Without any payment or reward,” says the Lord of hosts.

Isaiah 45:18-19

18 For thus says the Lord, who created the heavens (He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it a waste place, but formed it to be inhabited),

“I am the Lord, and there is none else.
19 “I have not spoken in secret,
In some dark land;
I did not say to the offspring of Jacob,
‘Seek Me in a waste place’;
I, the Lord, speak righteousness,
Declaring things that are upright.

Whoever your're talking to doesn't know what theyre talking about. Our Creator is the Melchizidek. Our Creator is the Son of God, the Word.

John 1:1-18

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.

6 There was a man sent from God whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.

9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

15 (John testified concerning him. He cried out, saying, “This is the one I spoke about when I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’”) 16 Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.

Augustine62

posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 10:28 PM

link

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by Augustine62

This confusion, as evidenced in the starting of this thread, is why ONLY the Catholic Church--being the Church Christ founded--has proper authority to interpret Sacred Scripture... not just any yokel off the street.

Hmmm... so, only the Catholic church should be interpreting scripture, eh?
Ok.... I cant wait to see what the protestants have to say about this.

signed,
a yokel off the street.

edit on 7-10-2012 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)

In truth, it doesn't matter what the Protestants have to say about it. The Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded and the Protestants didn't exist for almost a full 16 centuries after Her founding by Christ.

If the Protestants had a modicum of logical sense behind their position, there wouldn't be umpteen thousand (something like 40k and counting) denominations all being "told" by the Holy Spirit different things.

Does a house divided against itself stand? Nope. The Catholic Church is the True Church,as the Church that brought together the Sacred Scriptures, and She alone has the authority to interpret them and make known how they are to be understood.

lonewolf19792000

posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 10:50 PM

link

reply to post by Augustine62

The Catholic Church is the True Church,as the Church that brought together the Sacred Scriptures, and She alone has the authority to interpret them and make known how they are to be understood.

The true Church is a spiritual brotherhood bound in the blood of Christ not some damned earthly institution made by the hands of men, and men that corrupted it. Your "one true church" is bursting apart at the seems as the lies your Pope covers up becomes exposed. The diseases your church is infested with call you out, the alcoholism, the homosexual child abuse the priests commit against little boys, and it's not an isolated incident. Should i point out how many things your church has changed of Christ's commandments? If you people believe Jesus is God the same as we, then you should know God never changes, why then does your church seek to test God by changing the order he set into place?

I think i will trust my God over your church when it comes to interpretation of the scripture, as there is no better teacher then He. I only recognize His authority and i bend knee only to him, not some old man wearing the Dagon robes of the Dagon priesthood, claiming to be the physical representative of Christ on earth, which makes him Christ himself which is blasphemy.

edit on 7-10-2012 by lonewolf19792000 because: (no reason given)

Augustine62

posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 11:09 PM

link

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by Augustine62

The Catholic Church is the True Church,as the Church that brought together the Sacred Scriptures, and She alone has the authority to interpret them and make known how they are to be understood.

The true Church is a spiritual brotherhood bound in the blood of Christ not some damned earthly institution made by the hands of men, and men that corrupted it. Your "one true church" is bursting apart at the seems as the lies your Pope covers up becomes exposed. The diseases your church is infested with call you out, the alcoholism, the homosexual child abuse the priests commit against little boys, and it's not an isolated incident. Should i point out how many things your church has changed of Christ's commandments? If you people believe Jesus is God the same as we, then you should know God never changes, why then does your church seek to test God by changing the order he set into place?

I think i will trust my God over your church when it comes to interpretation of the scripture, as there is no better teacher then He. I only recognize His authority and i bend knee only to him, not some old man wearing the Dagon robes of the Dagon priesthood, claiming to be the physical representative of Christ on earth, which makes him Christ himself which is blasphemy.
edit on 7-10-2012 by lonewolf19792000 because: (no reason given)

In general, Christ terms His Church a kingdom, which supposes some organized authority. However the explicit steps in in the establishing of an authoritative hierarchy are clear. Christ chose certain special men. "You have not chosen Me: but I have chosen you." John 15:16. He gave them His own mission. "As the Father hath sent Me, I also send you." John 20:21. This commision included His teaching authority: "Teach all nations... whatsoever I have commanded you." Matthew 28: 19-20; His power to sanctify--"Baptizing them," Matthew 28, 19--forgiving sin, "Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven," John 22: 23--offering sacrifice, "Do this in commemoration of Me." 1 Cor 11: 24; His legislative or disciplinary power-- "He who hears you, hears Me, and he who despises you despises Me," Luke 10:16; "Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven," Matthew 18:18. "If a man will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen," Matthew 18:17. The Apostles certainly exercised these powers from the beginning. Thus we read in the Acts of the Apostles, "They were all persevering in the doctrine of the Apostles," Ch 2:42. St. Paul himself did not hesitate to excommunicate the incestuous Corinthian. 1 Cor 5:3-5. And he wrote to the Hebrews, "Obey your prelates, and be subject to them." Hebrews 14:17."

- #4, True Church, Quizzes to a Street Preacher

#6, on being subject to any visible organization:

You may say that you believe it unnecessary. But pay attention to the words of Christ I have just quoted. He thought it necessary, and He has the right to map out the kind of religion we accept. If Christians had to accept such disciplinary authority in the time of the Apostles, they must accept it now. Christianity is Christianity. It does not change with the ages. If it did, it would lose its character, and not remain the religion of Christ, to which religion alone He attached His promises. And remember His prediction that His flock would be one fold with one shepherd. John 10:14-16. You would have sheep, not gathered into one fold, but straying anywhere and everywhere, having no shepherd with any real authority over them.

The Catholic Church is the ONLY Church which claims infallibility, and has since Her beginning. On some we find built on John Wesley; on another Martin Luther; on another Joel Osteen. But ONLY one--One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic-- Church do we find claiming foundation on Peter-- per Matthew 16:18, as established by Christ Himself.

Have fun despising Christ if you insist, but I implore you to honestly pray to the Holy Spirit to guide you to the Church Christ founded--and please, please, please stick with it! HONESTLY search out the doctrines the Church teaches and you shall find your home in the sheepfold Christ founded.

sk0rpi0n

posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 12:01 AM

link

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

Whoever your're talking to doesn't know what theyre talking about. Our Creator is the Melchizidek. Our Creator is the Son of God, the Word.

Actually, I wouldn't say that so confidently.

and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him and was designated by God to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek.
-Hebrews 5:9-10

Its pretty clear.
Jesus was designated by God to be a high priest in the order of Melchizedek

lonewolf19792000

posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 12:13 AM

link

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

Whoever your're talking to doesn't know what theyre talking about. Our Creator is the Melchizidek. Our Creator is the Son of God, the Word.

Actually, I wouldn't say that so confidently.

and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him and was designated by God to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek.
-Hebrews 5:9-10

Its pretty clear.
Jesus was designated by God to be a high priest in the order of Melchizedek

Not just a high priest, the High Priest. That's what the Melchizidek is. High Priest, Prophet and King all rolled into one. No King before him performed all the duties of a High Priest and a King before him. David performed some functions a priest but not all. Any other King that tried that was killed or cursed by God.

lonewolf19792000

posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 12:30 AM

link

reply to post by Augustine62

Rome wasn't founded on Peter. Peter was not the first Pope. Peter was crucified in Jerusalem and buried in Bethany on the Mt. of Olives and his bones have been discovered in Bethany along with Lazarus, Mary, Martha, Judah, Simeon, Ananias and Sapphira from Acts 5. Pius 12 tried to cover that discovery up in the 1960's to preserve the lie that Peter was buried in ROme and the first Pope. Your "infallible" church lies as easy as men draw a breath. Peter may have been the first leader of the Church, but of the true Church not that Mithrain thing masquerading as christianity that teaches men to break the commands set down in the Council of Jerusalem and from Christ himself.

Tell me where in the bible did Yeshua sanction the church to fornicate with civil powers and wage war? When did Christ command to convert people at the tip of a sword or torture them into submission? When did Christ ever tell the church to burn other christians or even heathen at the stake? When did Christ ever commend brutality and advocate mercilessness? When did Christ ever command to burn down jewish homes and burn them at the stake? When did Christ ever command your church to withhold the scriptures and forbid men to learn to read and write so they could read the scriptures for themselves? When did Christ change immersion into sprinkling? When Did Christ say to baptise infants who are incapable of making the decision to follow him on their own? Never thats when. You follow after traditions of men, no different than the pharisees of 2000 years ago.

Augustine62

posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 02:09 AM

link

(your portions are quoted, unless noted otherwise, my responses not)

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000

The Son has no mother, he existed before his human incarnation. Jesus' life didn't end with his crucifiction, thats when it began again. I told you in the other thread this world is the world of the dead, he had to die to himself to come here and die for us. and then he took up his life again.

The Son has a mother, and her name is Mary. Any protestation to this is patently asinine. What I think you mean to say is the Pre-Incarnated WORD has no mother... pre-incarnation. Within linear time this is true, though also not as we read in Genesis 3:15 that God would put enmity between the seed of Satan and the Seed of the Woman (which is Mary), who crushed the head of Satan by bearing forth the Christ: Jesus. Mary was declared by God as far back as the Garden of Eden. The Word made Flesh (John 1:14) is united in hypostatic union: the divinity and humanity of the Word are irrevocably joined so as to be the perfect Sacrifice for the sin of Man via the God-man: Jesus Christ.

This world is not the world of the dead, as this claim is a variant of Manichaeism-- thoroughly trounced on by St. Augustine who himself was formerly of the Manichaen sect. Jesus did not die to Himself to come here and die for us: what death can death render to itself, lest between life take hold? And wherein have you posited life, but a ridiculously unsatisfactory life, not being Divine in and of Himself-- as you have posited. This makes no logical sense. Christ humbled Himself (Kenosis) as read in Philippians 2:7 (or 2:6 depending on how the verse is divided and numbered).

[

Ver. 7. But debased himself: divested himself of all the marks of greatness, for the love of mankind. The Greek text signifies, he made himself void;[2] on which account Dr. Wells, instead of made himself of no reputation, as in the Protestant translation, has changed it into emptied himself; not but that the true Son of God must always remain truly God, as well as by his incarnation truly man, but that in him as man appeared no marks of his divine power and greatness. --- Made to the likeness[3] of men, not only as to an exterior likeness and appearance, but at the same time truly man by uniting his divine person to the nature of man. --- In shape[4] (or habit) found as a man: not clothed exteriorly only, as a man is clothed with a garment or coat, but found both as to shape and nature a man; and, as St. Chrysostom says, with the appearance of a sinful man, if we consider him persecuted by the Jews, and nailed to an infamous cross. (Witham)

]
Source: haydock1859.tripod.com...

Whoever your're talking to doesn't know what theyre talking about. Our Creator is the Melchizidek. Our Creator is the Son of God, the Word.

You, sir, don't know what you're talking about. Melchizedek is not Christ, but was king of Salem (proto-Jerusalem), and the writing in Hebrews regarding without father, mother, etc. is talking about the fact that his genealogy is not recorded in scripture as Hebrews 7:6 alludes to. He was, in fact, a Gentile... not being of the pedigree of Abraham-- of which(Abraham), Christ is a blood descendent in His Incarnation.

Melchizedek, being the then king and priest of Salem, was a typological understanding of Christ-- though also literally existed. Because the Kingdom of God extends in its prophetic understanding to the Gentiles as well--for there is neither Jew nor Greek-- and Melchizedek revered the True God as a Gentile (such as did Job), he serves as a wonderful typological understanding of the Kingship and Priesthood of Christ. Christ, then, takes over His rightful place in the Order of Melchizedek to first offer Sacrifice of Himself, typified by Melchizedek's unbloody Sacrifice, as this unbloody Sacrifice was, in time, made bloody by the Cross. Then, as understood in John Chapter 6 and at the Last Supper, this Sacrifice would continue under the species of Bread and Wine, becoming the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ in substance/essence (that which makes a thing truly a thing) while retaining the accidents of the bread and wine.

Otherwise, what on earth is Saint Paul ranting about in 1 Corinthians 11:27 when he says:

[27] Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.

Which bread? Consecrated: Body (yes, His real body) and chalice containing the wine: Consecrated: Blood (yes, His real blood): within the Mystery of the Eucharist. Saint Paul, nor God, would condemn people for eating symbolic bread. That's ridiculous. No, this IS the Body and Blood of the Lord.

Your understanding is: manichaen, not defensibly scriptural, and heresy (wrong).

Augustine62

posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 02:43 AM

link

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by Augustine62

Rome wasn't founded on Peter. Peter was not the first Pope. Peter was crucified in Jerusalem and buried in Bethany on the Mt. of Olives and his bones have been discovered in Bethany along with Lazarus, Mary, Martha, Judah, Simeon, Ananias and Sapphira from Acts 5. Pius 12 tried to cover that discovery up in the 1960's to preserve the lie that Peter was buried in ROme and the first Pope. Your "infallible" church lies as easy as men draw a breath. Peter may have been the first leader of the Church, but of the true Church not that Mithrain thing masquerading as christianity that teaches men to break the commands set down in the Council of Jerusalem and from Christ himself.

Whoever said Rome was founded on Saint Peter? Rome was, as the name implies, founded by Romulus centuries before St. Peter was a twinkling in his father Jonah's eyes...

The Church, however, was founded BY Christ ON the Rock (Petra: boulder), which is Saint Peter (Petros: Pebble)... and we can easily understand this "building up" or "making larger" of the pebble to the boulder: the Rock, via the oh-so-intrinsic necessity of Greek Grammar by which the object of the phrase "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah"(Matt 16:18) renders for us an etymological path to follow: Blessed- Makarios, meaning to make larger via God. Petros- Pebble... blessed = Petra, boulder. Paraphrase: I'll make you larger, Simon Bar-Jonah, for thou art a pebble and on this boulder I'll build My Church... and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it!

So, obviously, St. Peter is whom the Church is built on. This goes back to Christ's parable about the house built on the Rock... and how the winds and waves of time and persecution have not, after 2k years, managed to destroy the Catholic Church-- try all ya want, even Hell can't do it. Giggity.

You also provide a claim about Pope Pius XII which is odd in that you claim he tried to cover something up in the 60's, and he died in 1958. Time travelin' pope. Goodness. Source?

Further, St. Peter's bones were discovered in Rome where he was crucified in A.D. 67 while St. Paul was beheaded in the same year. Article(s): 1)www.catholicity.com...
www.catholicity.com...

Tell me where in the bible did Yeshua sanction the church to fornicate with civil powers and wage war? When did Christ command to convert people at the tip of a sword or torture them into submission? When did Christ ever tell the church to burn other christians or even heathen at the stake? When did Christ ever commend brutality and advocate mercilessness? When did Christ ever command to burn down jewish homes and burn them at the stake? When did Christ ever command your church to withhold the scriptures and forbid men to learn to read and write so they could read the scriptures for themselves? When did Christ change immersion into sprinkling? When Did Christ say to baptise infants who are incapable of making the decision to follow him on their own? Never thats when. You follow after traditions of men, no different than the pharisees of 2000 years ago.

In order: Nowhere. Nowhere. Nowhere. Nowhere. Nowhere. Nowhere (the Church never forbid men to learn to read and write and it did not withhold the Scriptures, prove it). Nowhere. [nor was immersion itself ever commanded; Sacraments have 3 things to make them: Matter, form and intent- Baptism: Matter (water) Form (I baptize these in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost) Intent (to baptize for the remission of Original and actual Sin)= Baptism.] Nowhere. [ however, Circumcision is not the choice of the infant either yet God commanded that on Israel. Also, upon use of Reason, any person can choose NOT to follow Christ and Baptism cannot change this freely willed action. Just as any adult can become an apostate, and reject Salvation having been baptized and confirmed into the Church-- such as Judas. What, exactly, are you arguing here? Salvation against the will? I'm not sure]...

Per the traditions of men... I guess you need to use your New Testament for rolling papers or something since Luke 10:16, 24:47; 1 Cor 15:1,11; Gal 1:11-12; Col 1:5; 1 Thess 2:13; 2 Tim 1:13, 4:2,6-7, etc.... all point not to "hey guys, buy my book and totally send it out on your Kindle-sharing network", but SPEAK and by this they would transfer and teach TRADITION, as Saint Paul says in 2 Thess 3:6

[6] And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received of us.

; amongst other places.

In fact, there was no canon prior to the Church putting it together and sifting false texts by way of TRADITION. Golly.

Seede

posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 08:35 AM

link

Text A priest after the order of Melchizedeck...does not mean Melchizedeck himself. Jesus is eternal, His priesthood is eternal. The Levitical priesthood had a beginning and a definite ending. Melchizedeck was the King of Salem, to whom Abraham paid tithes to.

reply to post by WarminIndy

I could be wrong but was taught by a Christian rabbi that the Melchizedeck who greeted Abraham was Shem and that the order of Shem was that Shem offered no blood sacrifice to God. Therefore Jesus is a priest after this order when blood sacrifice was done away with. Jesus was the last offering accepted by God. Shem and father Noah had a school dedicated to teaching of God and it was Shem who gave the office of priest to Abraham. That's my understanding but as I said I could be wrong.

lonewolf19792000

posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 09:30 AM

link

Originally posted by Seede

Text A priest after the order of Melchizedeck...does not mean Melchizedeck himself. Jesus is eternal, His priesthood is eternal. The Levitical priesthood had a beginning and a definite ending. Melchizedeck was the King of Salem, to whom Abraham paid tithes to.

reply to post by WarminIndy

I could be wrong but was taught by a Christian rabbi that the Melchizedeck who greeted Abraham was Shem and that the order of Shem was that Shem offered no blood sacrifice to God. Therefore Jesus is a priest after this order when blood sacrifice was done away with. Jesus was the last offering accepted by God. Shem and father Noah had a school dedicated to teaching of God and it was Shem who gave the office of priest to Abraham. That's my understanding but as I said I could be wrong.

Shem is thought to be the first King of Peace (Yiru-Shahalem or Jerusalem). Shem was one of the few men who stood against Nimrod and tried to keep the Antedeluvian knowledge of the real God alive. It's thought by some he outlived Abraham possibly. Noah was still alive when Abraham was 49.

Augustine62

posted on Oct, 8 2012 @ 10:33 AM

link

Originally posted by Seede

Text A priest after the order of Melchizedeck...does not mean Melchizedeck himself. Jesus is eternal, His priesthood is eternal. The Levitical priesthood had a beginning and a definite ending. Melchizedeck was the King of Salem, to whom Abraham paid tithes to.

reply to post by WarminIndy

I could be wrong but was taught by a Christian rabbi that the Melchizedeck who greeted Abraham was Shem and that the order of Shem was that Shem offered no blood sacrifice to God. Therefore Jesus is a priest after this order when blood sacrifice was done away with. Jesus was the last offering accepted by God. Shem and father Noah had a school dedicated to teaching of God and it was Shem who gave the office of priest to Abraham. That's my understanding but as I said I could be wrong.

Shem's genealogy is given in Scripture so Melchizedek is not Shem. Dunno what a Christian Rabbi is... was this a "messianic Jew"?

Here's what Fr. Haydock states in his Biblical commentary:

Ver. 18. Melchisedech was not Sem: for his genealogy is given in Scripture. (Hebrews vii. 6.); nor God the Son, for they are compared together; nor the Holy Ghost, as some have asserted, but a virtuous Gentile who adored the true God, and was king of Salem, or Jerusalem, and Priest of an order different from that of Aaron, offering in sacrifice bread and wine, a figure of Christ's sacrifice in the Mass; as the fathers constantly affirm. (Haydock) --- See Pererius. St. Jerome, ep. ad Evagrium, says, "Melchisedech offered not bloody victims, but dedicated the sacrament of Christ in bread and wine...a pure sacrifice." See St. Cyprian ep. 63, ad Cæcil.; St. Augustine, City of God xvi. 22, &c. Many Protestants confess, that this renowned prince of Chanaan, was also a priest; but they will not allow that his sacrifices consisted of bread and wine. In what then? for a true priest must offer some real sacrifice. If Christ, therefore, be a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech, whose sacrifice was not bloody, as those of Aaron were, what other sacrifice does he now offer, but that of his own body and blood in the holy Mass, by the ministry of his priests? for he was the priest: this is plainly referred to bringing forth, &c., which shews that word to be sacrificial, as in Judges vi. 18. The Hebrew may be ambiguous. But all know that vau means for as well as and. Thus the English Bible had it, 1552, "for he was the priest." (Worthington) --- If Josephus take notice only of Melchisedech, offering Abram and his men corporal refreshment, we need not wonder; he was a Jewish priest, to whom the order of Melchisedech might not be agreeable. It is not indeed improbable, but Abram might partake of the meat, which had been offered in thanksgiving by Melchisedech; and in this sense his words are true. But there would be no need of observing, that he was a priest on this account; as this was a piece of civility expected from princes on similar occasions. (Deuteronomy xxiii. 4; 2 Kings xvii. 27.) (Haydock)

Source: haydock1859.tripod.com...

edit on 8-10-2012 by Augustine62 because: coffee hasn't taken effect yet; spelling.