[De Maria]

I have no idea what you just said. First and foremost: for those who don't use a Bible based on the Septuagint, it's Psalm 30. Second, David had nothing to do with the temple. Solomon built the temple; David built a palace for himself, and that's what he was dedicating in this psalm. I have no idea where a "ram" comes into anything, because it's not in any version of the psalm, but since your entire paragraph is basically gibberish, I shouldn't be surprised. There's no "mediator" in either of those verses, and David didn't "perfect" anything, especially the temple. This entire paragraph makes no sense at all.

This likewise makes no sense at all. You're not helping your case.

[more incomprehensible stuff snipped]

Actually, it is quite easy to comprehend. You are simply obfuscating to avoid the point Joe is making.

So, it was Solomon who built the temple. Then substitute Solomon for David in his statement and respond to his point. Was everything finished when Solomon finished the temple? Obviously not, the Jews still had to worship therein.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[dwashbur]

Actually, it is quite easy to comprehend. You are simply obfuscating to avoid the point Joe is making.

So, it was Solomon who built the temple. Then substitute Solomon for David in his statement and respond to his point. Was everything finished when Solomon finished the temple? Obviously not, the Jews still had to worship therein.

Sincerely,

De Maria

First, the problem wasn't the content, it was syntax and such. See the other responses. Second, yes, the temple was finished when Solomon finished building it. It was a place to worship, but building it is something different from worshiping in it after it was finished. Your connection doesn't make any sense. For one thing, what does "everything" mean? For another, worshiping in the temple didn't constitute continuing to build it. If that kind of redefinition is possible, we might as well all go off and take the Humpty Dumpty approach, because communication will become impossible.

[dwashbur]

We were talking about the water-to-wine event at Cana as a prefiguring. And I really don't care what "the Church" taught, I'm interested in how the Bible sees it.

That is a very anti-biblical attitude:
Matthew 18:17
And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Wow. That is some of the most out-of-context citation I've seen in many a year. Check the rest of the discourse and find out what he's actually talking about. Furthermore, how is saying "I'm interested in how the Bible sees it" anti-biblical? I said I don't care what a corrupt medieval church taught and wanted to understand what the Bible says about it. Your accusation is doubletalk.

Sure it does. It shows that with but a word, God can transubstantiate matter. He turned the water from one substance to another, the blood of the grape, wine. Later He would transubstantiate the blood of the grape into His own Blood.

This is laughable. The water that changed to wine was real wine; it looked like wine, it tasted like wine, and so on. The claim about transubstantiation is totally different; supposedly it remains bread and wine to the senses. There's no comparison at all except in someone's imagination.
[snip]

Wrong. There's nothing "continual" about it. He gave his life, died, and rose. The sacrifice is complete.

If He were a simple human being, that would be correct. If His Sacrifice were not a religious sacrifice replacing the original Passover with the Passover of Christ, that would be correct.

That makes no sense at all. After Christ's sacrifice, we stopped doing the passover sacrifice. In other words, it's done. I'm not what you think makes it "continual". He didn't "replace" the passover, he fulfilled it. That means it was no longer necessary. Why? He said it himself: it is finished. I have no idea how you get something continuous out of any of this.

However, Christ's Passover:
1 Corinthians 5:7
Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:

"Is sacrificed" is a very poor translation. The tense is aorist, i.e. simple past tense, which means "was sacrificed" or "has been sacrificed." Again, all indications are that it's done. There's nothing continuous here.

Has the Lamb of God being Sacrificed for the sins of the world:
Revelation 5:6
And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

I haven't a clue what your point is with this verse.

And the Passover is not complete until the Blood has been smeared on the doorposts and the flesh has been consumed:
John 6:54
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

Once again, you're reading more into it than it can possibly carry. There is no connection at all between communion and smearing the blood on the lintel and doorposts. What are you going to do, smear the wine on your forehead and legs? This is all way beyond absurd.

Hebrews 10:10
By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.



All have yet to come into existence. Therefore it is not yet done.

Are you for real? That's not what it means. I suggest a good book on Bible interpretation.

That doesn't say that the Sacrifice is finished. What Jesus meant is that His immolation was complete. He had given up His life for our sins.

You said the sacrifice had to be consumed, i.e. immolated. By your own interpretation, Jesus said this had happened and was done. And of course, then there's the question of how you know this is what he meant when he cried "It is finished!" I think you're pulling this out of the ether; I'm just not sure why. But I think you just shot yourself in the foot.

Obviously, Jesus had not yet risen. And if Jesus did not rise, then we would be the most pitiful of men:

Irrelevant in the current context.

1 Corinthians 15:12-14 (King James Version)

12Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: 14And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

Therefore, Christ did not mean that everything was finished, since He had not yet risen.

You keep throwing around the word "everything," but it's impossible to know what you mean by it. Jesus' sacrifice is finished; by your own words, he said that. His resurrection has nothing to do with that.

Not at all. It is the Catholic Church which teaches Christ Crucified.
1 Corinthians 1:23
But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

You and most other Protestants have taken Christ off the Cross.

News flash: he's off the cross. He was taken down from it the same day. You seem to think this verse means he's still on the cross, but once again it's an aorist tense, "Christ having been crucified." And I'd be careful about the attacks on protestants and others; it can get you nailed by the moderators. I don't care myself, but I have a thicker skin than some.

We didn't take Christ off the Cross; his friends did, Joseph of Arimathea and others. We proclaim him crucified AND buried, AND risen. Apparently you have a problem with us doing that, and that's your problem, not mine.

[JoeT777]

This is laughable. The water that changed to wine was real wine; it looked like wine, it tasted like wine, and so on. The claim about transubstantiation is totally different; supposedly it remains bread and wine to the senses. There's no comparison at all except in someone's imagination.

Then why have scripture at all if we are to assume that everything we object to is silly or irrelevant, or nonsense? I thought the non-Catholics got their faith straight from the Book, like a book of magic spells. And you want to relegate the few words we have of Christ as irrelevant? Do you think John would waste precious time and parchment telling us of Christ's 'party-time' if it were irrelevant? Especially that little Cana should be a subject of three, not one, but three pericope in the precious few writings we have of Christ?

The point is that water transubstantiated to wine, and in less time than it took for the waiter to fill the jugs. Matter of one essence became the essence of wine. If Christ is willing to take such strong measures as to transubstantiate water into wine to please his mother it shows what might he do to save the world; thus bread becomes the body, soul and Divinity of Christ.

Now there were set there six waterpots of stone, according to the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three measures apiece. Jesus says to them: Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. And Jesus says to them: Draw out now and carry to the chief steward of the feast. And they carried it. And when the chief steward had tasted the water made wine and knew not whence it was, but the waiters knew who had drawn the water: the chief steward calls the bridegroom, and said to him: Every man at first sets forth good wine, and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse. But you have kept the good wine until now. This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee and manifested his glory. And his disciples believed in him. After this, he went down to Capharnaum, he and his mother and his brethren and his disciples: and they remained there not many days. (John 2:7-12)

Just an irrelevant party trick?

The wine made of water wasn't just watered down wine, like you might after everybody Is a bit tipsy. This is the 'good wine', a drink that was once water. The verse tells us there's more from Cana.

He came again therefore into Cana of Galilee, where he made the water wine. And there was a certain ruler, whose son was sick at Capharnaum… The ruler said to him: Lord, come down before that my son die. Jesus said to him: Go your way. Your son lives. The man believed the word which Jesus said to him and went his way … it was at the same hour that Jesus said to him: Your son lives. And himself believed, and his whole house. This is again the second miracle that Jesus did, when he had come out of Judea into Galilee. (John 4:46-53)

Christ gave faith and hope to the father and then saved the boy from death. If we look strictly at the physical aspects of this miracle we'll miss the point. Christ reminds the father that he's not there to provide “signs and wonders” for the party goers, there is a real mystery in His presence.

There's more; you do remember Nathanael from John's 1st Chapter? Nathanael said to him: Whence do you know me? Jesus answered and said to him: Before that Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you. Nathanael answered him and said: Rabbi: You are the Son of God. (John 1:48-49) Nathanael (otherwise known as St. Bartholomew), was a man Christ seemed to warm to; “Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no guile” An Israelite under a fig tree – there's significance in being seen under the fig tree, but I don't want to confuse with more extraneous Catholic exegesis, so I'll leave it for another time.

After the Passion of Christ Peter, Thomas, Nathanael along with the sons of Zebedee went fishing. They left shore in the night and at first light saw a man on shore, the resurrected Jesus. He yelled out “Children have you any meat?” It's not immaterial that Christ had asked about meat, what had he said to them in Capharnaum; For my flesh is meat indeed?

Jesus stood on the shore: yet the disciples knew not that it was Jesus. Jesus therefore said to them: Children, have you any meat? They answered him: No. He says to them: Cast the net on the right side of the ship; and you shall find. They cast therefore: and now they were not able to draw it, for the multitude of fishes. That disciple therefore whom Jesus loved said to Peter: It is the Lord. Simon Peter, when he heard that it was the Lord, girt his coat about him (for he was naked) and cast himself into the sea. But the other disciples came in the ship (for they were not far from the land, but as it were two hundred cubits) dragging the net with fishes. As soon then as they came to land they saw hot coals lying, and a fish laid thereon, and bread. Jesus says to them: Bring hither of the fishes which you have now caught. Simon Peter went up and drew the net to land, full of great fishes, one hundred and fifty-three. And although there were so many, the net was not broken. Jesus says to them: Come and dine. And none of them who were at meat, dared ask him: Who are you? Knowing that it was the Lord. And Jesus comes and takes bread and gives them: and fish in like manner. This is now the third time that Jesus was manifested to his disciples, after he was risen from the dead (John 21:4-14)

Why did they go 'fishing' for meat? Every good Catholic knows that fish isn't meat. (Just in case you don't know it, fish weren't considered meat in the same sense as red meat is. That's why when we fast on Friday's we can eat fish without breaking fast. ) By the time the Apostles got to shore, Christ had fish on the fire and bread. Where did the bread come from?

Consequently, we see the wedding ceremony at Cana prefiguring the wedding of the faithful to His Kingdom; the wine is a heady spiritual drink, Christ's blood. It is meant for the faithful, those without guile, a real meat for the soul.


JoeT

[dwashbur]

Then why have scripture at all if we are to assume that everything we object to is silly or irrelevant, or nonsense? I thought the non-Catholics got their faith straight from the Book, like a book of magic spells. And you want to relegate the few words we have of Christ as irrelevant? Do you think John would waste precious time and parchment telling us of Christ’s ‘party-time’ if it were irrelevant? Especially that little Cana should be a subject of three, not one, but three pericope in the precious few writings we have of Christ?

I don't know where you got this stuff, but you didn't get it from what I wrote.

The point is that water transubstantiated to wine, and in less time than it took for the waiter to fill the jugs. Matter of one essence became the essence of wine. If Christ is willing to take such strong measures as to transubstantiate water into wine to please his mother it shows what might he do to save the world; thus bread becomes the body, soul and Divinity of Christ.

No, the point is that Jesus had authority over creation and could make one thing into another if he wanted to. And John tells us in words of one syllable why he did it: It. Was. A. Sign. John 2:11 explicitly says it was a way of revealing his glory and who he was. Why isn't that enough for you? You insist on reading so much more into the text than is actually there. You even quoted it yourself below, yet you somehow manage to miss the inspired writer's own explanation of this miracle. Amazing.

Now there were set there six waterpots of stone, according to the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three measures apiece. Jesus says to them: Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. And Jesus says to them: Draw out now and carry to the chief steward of the feast. And they carried it. And when the chief steward had tasted the water made wine and knew not whence it was, but the waiters knew who had drawn the water: the chief steward calls the bridegroom, and said to him: Every man at first sets forth good wine, and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse. But you have kept the good wine until now. This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee and manifested his glory. And his disciples believed in him. After this, he went down to Capharnaum, he and his mother and his brethren and his disciples: and they remained there not many days. (John 2:7-12)

I have snipped a bunch of irrelevant stuff about Cana. Yes, several things happened there. A lot more happened in Capernaum. Why? Because those places are where he happened to be at the time. Not everything carries some deep esoteric message that only the elite can grasp.

After the Passion of Christ Peter, Thomas, Nathanael along with the sons of Zebedee went fishing. They left shore in the night and at first light saw a man on shore, the resurrected Jesus. He yelled out “Children have you any meat?” It’s not immaterial that Christ had asked about meat, what had he said to them in Capharnaum; For my flesh is meat indeed?

He didn't say "meat." He said PROSPHAGION, a particular dish made from fish. He was asking if they had any fish to make it with, and when they said no, he told them where to catch it. Once again, like the water-to-wine episode, it was a way of showing who he was. There was no deep "my flesh is meat" meaning, unless he was calling himself a fish.

And in answer to your question that I snipped, they didn't go fishing for meat. They went fishing for fish, which is what he asked them about. You need a better translation, because your entire argument falls on its face due to this one mistranslation.

[classyT]

De Maria,

The Lord Jesus Christ IS off the cross! I can't believe you have a problem with that. WOW!

Dave,

You are very impressive there sir... and here I called you slow-witted. Tsk tsk on me. :)