1 Timothy 2:5 ("One Mediator Between God And Man") And Roman Catholic Apologetics

• Discussion:

          -The purpose of this article is to answer claims made by Sonja Corbitt in defense of Roman Catholic mariology and an ordained ministerial priesthood in light of 1 Timothy 2:5. She largely just uses semantics on these issues rather than actually addressing them. Citations from the author are provided in bold letters and followed with critical comments:

          "Indeed. Did Jesus carry you in his womb? And after your conception, gestation, and birth, what then? Have you not been fed, clothed, educated, loved, provided for, and protected by someone who is not Jesus unto this day?"

          This rhetoric is only designed to sidestep the real issue at hand. How could the Apostle Paul consistently affirm Jesus Christ to be our "one mediator" when there is supposedly a bunch of other lesser mediators? The author does not provide a clear-cut explanation as to how or why this can be. In that same text, Paul says that there is "one God." Based on the reasoning of the author, should we deduce the existence of mini-gods?

          "Does everything you know about Christ come from Christ himself? Did Jesus baptize you? Did Jesus teach you to read or read the Scriptures to you? Did Jesus hand-write your Bible, gather its writings, or physically protect the Deposit of Faith for 2000 plus years until you could receive it from his literal mouth?"

          The author merely filibusters the issue of what it means for Jesus Christ to be the one mediator between God and man. Christ came to reconcile sinners to a holy God. Only He, being sinless and divine, could make our redemption happen through His atonement sacrifice. We are to place our trust in Christ alone. He handles our prayers before God. Christ alone is our intercessor before God.

          "You are prayed for by other people. You are taught the Word of God by a person. And people even forgive one another! All the time if they’re obedient to Jesus, “forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us."

          When we pray on behalf of other Christians, we are not praying to them or through them. Prayer is done to God through Christ alone. The New Testament establishes Him as being the mediator between God and man without any reference to saints and angels (Hebrews 9:13-15; Hebrews 12:24).

          There is a distinction between the forgiveness of sin committed between offended parties and the forgiveness before God made available through the cross. It is also fallacious to conflate teaching Scripture with being a mediator of His grace. Petitioning God in prayer nowhere amounts to functioning as a channel of God's mercy or applying the benefits of Christ's atonement to other people.

          "Catholic confession and forgiveness through a priest follows the same pattern. The Pharisees also made the “God is the only mediator” claim against Jesus in this very matter: “No man can forgive sins, but God only” (Luke 5:21).

          The point that Jesus Christ makes in Luke 5 is that He is God in the flesh. As such, He would indeed have the authority to pardon our iniquity. Also, there is an element of irony that is worthy of mention here. Even the Scribes and Pharisees of the Law were not arrogant enough to think that they had the ability to forgive the sins of God's people. Yet, the Roman Catholic priesthood has without guilt or embarrassment took upon itself precisely that role!

          Some may argue that God alone forgives sin through a priest, but that premise is self-defeating. In that scenario, there would still be an additional party involved in Jesus Christ's mediatorship. Believers are to approach God for the forgiveness of sin directly through Christ. We do not need to consult sinful men in order to access the grace provided through the cross (Hebrews 4:14-16). We are to approach Jesus Christ directly for the forgiveness of any and all sins.

Does 1 Corinthians 15:50 Say That We Will Not Be Raised With Physical Bodies?

• Discussion:

          -Jehovah's Witnesses often present 1 Corinthians 15:50 as a cornerstone of their doctrinal framework, particularly in rejecting the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ and asserting the existence of a unique class of 144,000 individuals who, they claim, are resurrected as purely spirit beings. This verse is frequently quoted as follows:

          "Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable."

          At face value, this verse could be misconstrued to suggest that physical bodies are incompatible with God's kingdom. However, a closer examination of Scripture provides ample evidence refuting such a claim. For instance, after His resurrection, Jesus explicitly stated, "See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have" (Luke 24:39-40). This declaration was accompanied by a physical demonstration—He displayed His hands and feet, which bore the marks of His crucifixion, and even ate food in their presence (Luke 24:41-43). These actions served to prove that His resurrection was bodily and tangible, not merely spiritual or ghost-like.

          The argument that physical bodies are inherently unsuitable for the kingdom of God must be viewed in light of the Bible's broader teachings on glorification. While it is true that fallen humanity, represented by the phrase "flesh and blood," cannot inherit God's eternal kingdom, this does not mean that physicality itself is excluded. Instead, "flesh and blood" serves as a euphemism for humanity in its corrupted, mortal state—a condition resulting from the Fall (Genesis 3). In 1 Corinthians 15:53-55, Paul elaborates that the mortal must "put on" immortality and the perishable must "put on" imperishability. This transformation does not involve discarding physical bodies entirely; rather, it involves their perfection and glorification. Our physical nature will be restored to its pre-Fall state—untainted by sin, decay, or death.

          The biblical narrative provides additional examples affirming this understanding. Enoch, described in Genesis 5:24, was taken by God directly into heaven without experiencing death. The text gives no indication that Enoch's physical body was discarded or altered into a spirit-only existence. Similarly, Elijah was taken into heaven in a whirlwind while still in his earthly form (2 Kings 2:11).

          Jesus Himself serves as the ultimate model of resurrection and glorification. He ascended into heaven in a physical, human body (Acts 1:9-11), and He remains fully God and fully man, mediating between God and believers (1 Timothy 2:5). His return to judge the world is prophesied to occur in bodily form (Acts 17:31), and Paul emphasizes in Colossians 2:9 that in Christ "all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form." Thus, the glorified physicality of Christ exemplifies the type of resurrection believers can expect.

          The instantaneous nature of this transformation is described in 1 Corinthians 15:52, which says it will occur "in the twinkling of an eye" at the last trumpet. At this moment, the dead will be raised imperishable, and the living will be changed. This event reflects God's power to perfect His creation—restoring humanity to its intended state and preparing us to inhabit the New Heavens and New Earth (Revelation 21:1-4).

          While 1 Corinthians 15:50 states that "flesh and blood" cannot inherit God's kingdom, this does not negate the resurrection and glorification of physical bodies. Rather, it underscores the necessity of transformation—our fallen, mortal bodies must be made imperishable. Jesus Christ, in His glorified body, is the prototype for this future reality. His resurrection was tangible and physical, proving that humanity, in its perfected form, will indeed be fit to dwell eternally in God's presence.

Debunking The Jehovah's Witness Teaching On The 144,000

• Discussion:

          -The Watchtower Society teaches that there is a literal, anointed class of 144,000 Christians who will inherit the kingdom of God and reign with Christ. Other believers who qualify to fit into a secondary rank will get to dwell together in a world of paradise under the headship of the 144,000. To summarize, the Jehovah's Witnesses maintain a distinction among types of redeemed people.

           The Bible does not place a specific limit on the number of people who can enjoy spending eternity with God in heaven. Everybody who asks receives, and everybody who seeks will find (Matthew 7:8). There is no spiritual distinction among those who have placed their trust in the righteousness of God (Romans 3:21-22). The Apostle Paul says without setting forth any categories that our citizenship is in the heavenly sanctuary above (Philippians 3:20). Jesus Christ said that the "household" of the Father is comprised of "many rooms" (John 14:2-3).

          If the Jehovah's Witnesses are correct in their understanding regarding the 144,000 people spoken of in Revelation chapters 7 and 14, then that would mean (in order to remain consistent with the rest of the context) only a small remnant of Jewish people could be saved. With that point comes other inferences that are ludicrous. Charles Taze Russell would be excluded from heaven because he was not a Jew. The Apostle Peter would be excluded from heaven because he was not a virgin. All women would be excluded from heaven because the context identifies all members of this group to be males (which would be sexist).

          These believing Jewish males could very well be ordained by God from the twelve tribes of Israel to preach the gospel in the midst of tribulational calamity (Revelation 14:1-3). Other commentators take this reference to the 144,000 to be a symbolic representation of the entire body of the saints. After all, Revelation 7:9-10 says that countless multitudes of people were standing before the throne of God worshiping and singing praises. Nonetheless, the idea that only 144,000 people will enter heaven is untenable.

          Strangely enough, the idea of an eternal paradise earth for a secondary class of believers was introduced into the Jehovah's Witness sect by Joseph Rutherford, the second president of the Watchtower Tract and Bible Society. It was not taught by Charles Taze Russell, who is reputed to be the founder of what has been termed the Bible Study Movement. This teaching has not been present among the Jehovah's Witnesses from the very beginning.

Was Mary Magdalene A Prostitute?

"There is no evidence that the early church tried to tarnish Mary Magdalene’s reputation by making her out to be a prostitute. Any reference to her as a prostitute does not come from the Bible. Here is what we do know of Mary from the biblical record: Seven demons were cast out of her by Jesus (Luke 8:2); she witnessed the horror of the crucifixion (Matthew 27:32-56); she was present at the burial of Jesus (Matthew 27:57-61); she, along with two other women, went to anoint the body of Jesus (Mark 16:1), and she was the first person to see Jesus in his resurrected body (John 20:10-18).

Some have surmised that since her name and story appear immediately following the account of a prostitute, the two are one and the same woman (see Luke 7:36-8:2). But there is no biblical support for this conclusion. (Most historians agree that the reference to Mary Magdalene as a prostitute was started in the sixth century by Pope Gregory I). Still others have conjectured that she is the anonymous woman caught in adultery. There is no evidence to support that assumption, either. Some have guessed that she might have been a prostitute simply because she came from Magdala, which was often associated with prostitution. Once again, the Bible says no such thing. Any association of Mary of Magdala with either of the above-mentioned anonymous women would have been merely a result of conjecture--or very careless scholarship--probably dating to the Middle Ages, as opposed to a smear campaign."

James L. Garlow and Peter Jones, Cracking Da Vinci’s Code, p. 59-60

Was Jesus Christ Crucified On A Cross Or A Stake As The Jehovah's Witnesses Claim?

The Greek Terms Stauros And Xulon:

The meaning of the Greek word stauros has been a subject of intense debate, particularly regarding its application to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Contrary to the claims of some groups, including Jehovah’s Witnesses, stauros historically did not exclusively refer to a single upright stake. Instead, it was a term used to describe a range of wooden execution devices, including the cross-shaped structure widely recognized in traditional Christian imagery. Ancient crucifixion practices, as noted by the Roman philosopher Seneca the Younger, varied greatly: "I see crosses there, not just of one kind but made in many different ways: some have their victims with head down to the ground; some impale their private parts; others stretch out their arms on the gibbet." Clearly, the method of crucifixion was not confined to a single form, and stauros reflects this diversity.

Additionally, the Greek word xulon, which appears in the New Testament, is often translated as "tree" or "wood" and further illustrates linguistic flexibility. In Galatians 3:13, Paul quotes Deuteronomy 21:22-23: "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree." Here, xulon is not used to specify the shape of the crucifixion device but to underscore the theological significance of Christ’s death. The focus of the passage is not on whether Jesus hung on a cross or a stake, but on the fact that He bore the curse of sin on humanity's behalf. This distinction highlights the symbolic weight of the crucifixion, rendering debates over the precise shape secondary to its redemptive purpose.

Biblical Evidence Of The Traditional Cross:

There is compelling biblical evidence supporting the traditional cross as the shape of the crucifixion device. After His resurrection, Jesus appeared to the disciples, but Thomas initially refused to believe until he could see and touch the wounds left by the nails in Jesus’ hands and the spear in His side. The Gospel account specifies "nails" (plural), indicating that more than one nail was used to affix His hands—consistent with a cross where the arms are outstretched on a horizontal beam. A single upright stake would typically require only one nail for the hands, making the traditional cross the more plausible instrument.

The Gospels record that an inscription declaring Jesus as "The King of the Jews" was placed above His head. This detail strongly suggests that the structure of the crucifixion device included a vertical beam tall enough to accommodate the placement of the sign—a feature consistent with the traditional cross.

Jesus foretold Peter’s eventual martyrdom with the words, "When you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will gird you and bring you where you do not wish to go." Early Christian tradition holds that Peter was crucified, and this imagery of stretching out one’s hands mirrors the position of crucifixion on a cross with an extended horizontal beam.

Controversy With Jehovah’s Witnesses:

Jehovah’s Witnesses emphatically deny that Jesus died on a cross, claiming instead that He was executed on a simple upright stake. This assertion represents a radical departure not only from mainstream Christian tradition but also from the early teachings of their own organization. Under the leadership of Charles Taze Russell, the founder of the Bible Student movement (which later became Jehovah’s Witnesses), the cross was an accepted symbol of Christ’s crucifixion. Early Watchtower literature, such as The Harp of God (1921), portrayed Jesus’ death on a cross in alignment with traditional Christian teachings.

However, a doctrinal shift occurred under the leadership of Joseph Franklin Rutherford, who succeeded Russell in the early 20th century. Rutherford sought to distance the organization from what he derisively referred to as "Christendom," targeting traditional Christian symbols such as the cross. In 1936, Rutherford published Riches, in which he rejected the cross and asserted that Jesus died on an upright stake, or "torture stake." This reinterpretation, cemented in later Watchtower publications, was driven more by Rutherford’s ideological desire to create a distinct religious identity than by solid historical or biblical evidence.

The claim that stauros exclusively means "stake" is linguistically tenuous. The term was widely used in ancient Greek to describe various wooden execution devices, and archaeological findings from Roman crucifixion practices frequently depict cross-shaped structures. By ignoring this historical and linguistic context, the Watchtower Society’s interpretation imposes a narrow, unfounded reading of the text that serves its organizational agenda rather than an honest pursuit of truth.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses And Bodily Resurrection:

The doctrinal divergence of Jehovah’s Witnesses extends beyond the nature of the crucifixion to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. They contend that Jesus was resurrected as a spirit being, not in a physical body. However, this claim is unequivocally contradicted by Scripture.

Jesus explicitly stated to His disciples, "See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." Here, Jesus directly refutes the notion that His resurrection was purely spiritual. By inviting His disciples to touch His physical body, He provides clear evidence of His bodily resurrection.

To further demonstrate the reality of His physical form, Jesus ate food in the presence of His disciples. Such an act would be unnecessary and impossible for a purely spiritual being, emphasizing the tangible nature of His resurrected body.

Jesus predicted His resurrection when He said, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." The text clarifies that He was speaking about the temple of His body, affirming that His physical body was raised from the dead.

The physical resurrection of Jesus is a cornerstone of Christian faith, as Paul declares in 1 Corinthians 15:17: "If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins." The Watchtower Society’s denial of this truth undermines the foundational hope of the gospel and distorts the message of Scripture.

A Critical Exposure Of The Clear Word Bible

• Introduction:

          -The Clear Word Bible is a paraphrase written by Jack J. Blanco and made available to the public by the Review and Herald Publishing Association in March 1994. This product of the Seventh-Day Adventist church was designed to be an amplified translation of Scripture. The Clear Word Bible was made primarily for devotional use. However, this paraphrase is to be avoided because it contains textual modifications aimed at reflecting aberrant aspects of Seventh-Day Adventist theology. It contains bias in support of false doctrines such as annihilationism and Sabbatarianism. Wayne A. Grudem made a negative assessment of this Bible, "I do not think anyone should trust The Clear Word as a reliable translation of the Bible, or even as a useful paraphrase. It repeatedly distorts the teaching of the Bible. It removes significant content that is in the original Hebrew or Greek, and adds new ideas that are not found in the original texts." Following are examples of textual perversion within the Clear Word Bible:

• Comments On Genesis 2:2-3:

          -"Then on the seventh day of creation week, God stopped to enjoy what He had made and to rest in the beauty of it all. So He blessed the seventh day and set it apart as a day of spiritual refreshment and joy." (Clear Word Bible)

          -"By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made." (New American Standard Bible)
          -"And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done. So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in creation." (English Standard Version)

            *The Seventh-Day Adventist rendering of this passage makes the seventh day a day of creation, but the process was actually completed on the sixth. The day on which God is said to have "rested" is not the Sabbath. The Clear Word Bible wrongly introduces the day of rest prior to the time when the Hebrew Scriptures themselves reveal that day. God gave the Sabbath to the Jews wandering in the wilderness from Egypt (Exodus 16).

• Comments On Genesis 35:18:

          -"But Rachel didn’t survive the birth, and as she was dying, she named her baby Benoni, which means Son of My Sorrow, but Jacob renamed the baby Benjamin, meaning Son of My Right Hand." (Clear Word Bible)

          -"It came about as her soul was departing (for she died), that she named him Ben-oni; but his father called him Benjamin." (New American Standard Bible)
          -"And as her soul was departing (for she was dying), she called his name Ben-oni; but his father called him Benjamin." (English Standard Version)

            *The Seventh-Day Adventist rendering of Genesis 35:18 is clearly biased in favor of the false teaching called soul sleep. If the soul is said to depart upon death, then that would suggest it is an immaterial component that is separable from our physical bodies. It lives on despite our flesh returning to the earth from which it was made.

• Comments On Matthew 25:46:

          -"I have no choice but to end your lives, because in my kingdom everyone cares about everyone else.” (Clear Word Bible)

          -"These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." (New American Standard Bible)
          -"And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” (English Standard Version)

            *This verse has been altered so drastically in the Clear Word Bible that it barely resembles how word-for-word translations render it. The translators grasped at straws here to avoid the unfavorable implications of this passage as it relates to annihilationism. "Punishment" and "life" are contrasting destinies, yet their duration is functionally equivalent.

• Comments On John 10:30:

          -"You see, my Father and I are so close, we're one." (Clear Word Bible)

          -"I and the Father are one." (New American Standard Bible)
          -"I and the Father are one." (English Standard Version)

            *This rendering of the text is problematic because it describes a relational oneness rather than ontological. The oneness spoken of in John 10:30 is of being or the nature of God, not kindred. The Clear Word Bible confuses a statement about the fundamental qualities of Christ and God with one sounding similar to that of mere friendship.

• Comments On Hebrews 4:9:

          -"So there still remains the offer of spiritual rest that God intends for each generation to have, of which the Sabbath is a symbol." (Clear Word Bible)

          -"So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God." (New American Standard Bible)
          -"So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God." (English Standard Version)

            *This passage, when taken in context, plainly tells us that it is through Jesus Christ that we enter into the promised rest of God. Hebrews 4 actually refutes the position that Christians are to observe a weekly Sabbath. Our focus is to be on Christ, not a specific day of week.

From Culture To Christ: Ethics And Origins Of Easter Traditions

         Christians have for centuries set aside Easter as a time to specifically celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That day was formally recognized as such when Roman Emperor Constantine called for the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. The annual dating for this holiday is determined by moon cycles as was the Jewish Passover, though both religious observances are distinct. Differences in timing and how the Easter celebration was to take place can be traced back to the early second century. Any parallels of Easter to pagan symbolism would be the result of primitive believers interacting with the culture of their day. The question of Easter is one that deserves fair treatment.

        Many things nowadays have pagan parallels, including the names of planets in our solar system and days of the week. Can we do anything at all? Can we use anything? Similarities do not in and of themselves prove something to be evil or malicious in nature. Similarities do not inherently prove a logical connection or association of one thing with another. Further, symbols are subject to reinterpretation and can therefore be reused. They are a means of human beings communicating abstract concepts. If pagans once did something, then that does not necessarily mean Christians cannot do them for good reasons or simply for fun. Pagans also eat, walk, talk, and breath. We do those things all the time.

        Resurrection Sunday was celebrated by Christians long before it was made about the mythical creature called the Easter Bunny. What came to be known as Easter was sometimes linked to the pagan celebration of spring and the blossoming of plants. Christians created their own holiday, which exalts Christ and His resurrection. In both contexts, the theme is life arising where none existed before. Christianity took that idea and gave it a deeper meaning, one pointing to eternal realities. Those who argue that we are to celebrate His death rather than His resurrection behave foolishly, for without His death, there would have been no resurrection in the first place. Our faith would be in vain without it. Such a celebration does not exceed or violate the principles of Scripture.

 

        Claims of Easter being pagan originated with pagans and secularists who themselves detest the message of the gospel. The earth and the fullness contained therein belongs to the Lord. No mere mortal has the power to take a day that God created and make it corrupt. Christians who dogmatically condemn the celebration are guilty of making category errors, simplifying matters to the point at which a distorted image is created. Further, no sacrifices or homage is given to false gods in the process. The English term Easter comes from the Old German word "erstehen," which means coming back to life. It does not pertain to the celebration of anything pagan.

         If it were God's will that we be absolutely disconnected from the things of this world, then He would have to remove us at this very instant. We are to engage the culture with our beliefs, but lovingly stand firm in so doing. However, even the act of painting eggs or the idea of imaginary rabbits are nothing more than childish means of entertainment. Such is not inherently involved or related to the worship of false gods. Whether or not a Christian chooses to observe Easter is entirely a matter of conscience. It is not meant to be a test of orthodoxy.

Is The Roman Catholic Eucharist Cannibalism?

• Discussion:

          -Tim Staples wrote an article with the intent of addressing the charge of transubstantiation entailing cannibalism. In his piece, he tries distinguishing eating the flesh and blood of Christ under the appearance of the communion elements from the heathen practice of eating other people and claims that a symbolic interpretation results in unethical implications. Each of his arguments are cited in bold and followed with critical commentary:

         "First, Catholics do not receive our Lord in a cannibalistic form. Catholics receive him in the form of bread and wine. The cannibal kills his victim; Jesus does not die when he is consumed in Communion. Indeed, he is not changed in the slightest; the communicant is the only person who is changed. The cannibal eats part of his victim, whereas in Communion the entire Christ is consumed—body, blood, soul, and divinity. The cannibal sheds the blood of his victim; in Communion our Lord gives himself to us in a non-bloody way."

          The point remains that Catholics allegedly eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus Christ. A cannibal does not cease to qualify fitting under that label just because he eats only part of the victim, has eaten the whole victim, or does so in a different manner. The state of the victim does not change the resemblance of the fundamental act of eating human flesh, which aligns with the broad definition of cannibalism. Furthermore, theological distinctions do not change the physical act of consumption. A more correct answer would be that Catholics are innocent of cannibalism because no such change in the communion elements takes place during the mass. 

          "Second, if it were truly immoral in any sense for Christ to give us his flesh and blood to eat, it would be contrary to his holiness to command anyone to eat his body and blood—even symbolically. Symbolically performing an immoral act would be of its nature immoral."

          The usage of symbolism does not suggest as a logical consequence a literal understanding or act practiced. Jesus Christ is our source of spiritual life. We partake of Him by trusting in His atonement on a continual basis. He is not life to us because we literally eat His flesh and drink His blood. Further, how come the writers of the New Testament never clarified that the eucharist was not cannibalism?

          "Moreover, the expressions to eat flesh and to drink blood already carried symbolic meaning both in the Hebrew Old Testament and in the Greek New Testament, which was heavily influenced by Hebrew. In Psalm 27:1-2, Isaiah 9:18-20, Isaiah 49:26, Micah 3:3, and Revelation 17:6-16, we find these words (eating flesh and drinking blood) understood as symbolic for persecuting or assaulting someone. Jesus’ Jewish audience would never have thought he was saying, “Unless you persecute and assault me, you shall not have life in you.” Jesus never encouraged sin. This may well be another reason why the Jews took Christ at his word."

           Just because a figurative expression has a negative connotation in certain contexts, it does not follow such always has that same meaning or intention in every occurrence. There is nothing ruling out the possibility of more neutral or positive usages of eating flesh or drinking blood in a symbolic sense. For example, Psalm 23:5 uses imagery of a table being prepared before enemies to signify God's provision, even in the midst of adversaries. Psalm 119:103 describes the words of God as "sweeter than honey" to one's mouth, giving praise to God for His wisdom. Further, His metaphor in John 6 was an invitation to be reconciled to God, which is a positive message.

          If transubstantiation is true, then the consecrated elements should taste just like human flesh and blood. However, the communion elements taste just like bread and wine, even after consecration by a parish priest. There is something fundamentally wrong with a proposition which tells us that things are not consistent with the reality of our surroundings. Obviously, Jesus Christ has a better palate for food pairings than we do. Who knew that the Savior was such a gourmet?

Is The Roman Catholic Eucharist A Fulfillment Of The Jewish Passover?

• Discussion:

          -Roman Catholic apologist De Maria wrote an article in which he tries linking the sacrifice of the mass to the Passover feast. He also responds to certain objections to Roman Catholic eucharist theology based on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Each of the author's claims are cited in bold letters and followed with critical commentary:

          "The Mass is our Passover feast. Because Christ is our Passover (1 Corinthians 5:6-8). Perhaps you refuse to keep the Feast. But we don’t."

          1 Corinthians 5:7-8 says that Jesus Christ is our Passover. He died on the cross. That is what the slaughter of the Passover lamb typified, not some miraculous change of the communion elements into the literal body and blood of Christ. The point of this passage is that when we celebrate the Lord's Supper, we are to do so without malice. It does not specifically address the mode in which we partake of Christ in communion.

          "If you choose to deny, denigrate, disparage, dishonor and disannul the Mass, then Christ died in vain for you. (Hebrews 10:25-31)" 

          Hebrews chapter ten says nothing regarding the sacrifice of the mass. Rather, it addresses the singular act of Jesus Christ at Calvary. The people who forsake Him have denied the only sacrifice available for sin. Note that this context denies the work of Jesus is ongoing or reenacted (Hebrews 10:18). That point is stated emphatically.

          "Did you not understand that the Eucharist is the self same sacrifice that took place on Calvary?"

          That begs the question. No explanation as to how or why is given for us to believe the Catholic eucharist is the same sacrifice that took place on the cross.

          "Here is what Protestants miss and don’t understand. And the reason they don’t understand is because they don’t understand the Scriptures."

          Must a "Protestant" become a Jehovah's Witness or a Mormon in order to see those particular systems of doctrine in Scripture? This actually sounds like something the Gnostics would have said with their emphasis of obtaining "higher knowledge" about God upon joining their sect. De Maria engages in circular reasoning and strains typology beyond its original intent.

          "In the Old Testament, we learn that Sacrifice is not simply the slaughter of the victim. Sacrifice is also the offering of the Victim. And Sacrifice is also the consuming of the Victim. Christ takes care of the first two aspects of His Sacrifice. We participate in the same Sacrifice by consuming the Passover. Have you not read in Scripture (Exodus 12:1-10)?"

           It is a non-sequitur to say that we eat the literal body of Christ during the Lord's Supper because the Israelites ate the flesh of the animals that they sacrificed. Further, no transubstantiation took place in the sacrifices of the Old Testament. The Lord's Supper is a New Testament institution. It is the New Covenant form of Passover. However, no transubstantiation takes place in the latter any more than it did in the former.

          "[Responding to Hebrews 9:22] We believe that the wine becomes the Blood of Christ. Therefore, Blood is involved. But it is not visible to the eye of flesh. By faith alone does one discern this Blood of Christ in the Cup of Salvation. (1 Corinthians 10:16; 11:27). Therefore, the Blood of our Lord is consumed in the Eucharist and that is why it is propitiatory for our sins."

          Nice try with the use of flowery philosophical language, but Hebrews 9:22 is still a problem because there is no blood shed during the mass. That is the means by which the forgiveness of sin is enabled, so it does not have propitiatory value as Rome teaches.

           Observe Paul's analogy of the body of Christ to the Jewish altar. Did the Jews eat pieces of the table? Are we literally one loaf (1 Corinthians 10:17)? The reference to "partaking of Christ" is obviously not meant to be understood literally. We do so through faith by looking at the memorial.

          If sacrifices for sin have to continually be made, then those offerings have insufficient power to redeem lost souls (Hebrews 9:13-14; 10:1-2; 10-11; 18). Thus, Roman Catholic teaching on the eucharist has blasphemous implications.

          "Where do you get the Blood of Christ which you claim washes away your sins, since you deny the Eucharist?"

          Christ translated His literal blood to the heavenly sanctuary so that it could be applied to the Mercy Seat and sprinkled on believers through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (Hebrews 9:12-28).

          "[Responding to Hebrews 7:27] True. But if that means that Christ no longer offers Himself to the Father, why is the Lamb standing in heaven as though slain (Revelation 5:6)?"

          Revelation 5:6 is imagery describing eschatology, not the eternal state of Christ. It is using imagery to identify Christ as the one who has been slain, not as one who is continually being slain. The context indicates that His work is a completed action:

          "And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth." (Revelation 5:6, emphasis added)

          "And they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation." (Revelation 5:9, emphasis added)

           "Saying with a loud voice, “Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!” (Revelation 5:12, emphasis added)

          The Apostle John's message is perfectly consistent with the author of Hebrews. Jesus took care of the issue of sin and its punishment roughly two thousand years. His work has already been accomplished in full.

          "[Responding to Hebrews 9:12] Well, He did. How does this contradict the Mass. It is because He did that we can celebrate the Mass."

           Jesus died once for all. His one sacrifice is complete and perfect, never again being repeated or made ongoing. It is not like the Old Covenant sacrifices, which were repeatedly offered because they could never actually atone for sin.

          "[Responding to Hebrews 9:26-28] This also does not speak against the Mass, but confirms it."

          The Roman Catholic mass is contradicted because the text tells us that Christ is only going to appear twice with the later time to bring salvation for those who believe. Moreover, Christ's work is contrasted with the work of the Old Testament high priests whose work was ongoing.

          "[Responding to Hebrews 10:10] Yes. Once for ALLLLLLLLL. That includes us. And the benefits of the Sacrifice of Christ, are applied to us, in the Mass."

          Jesus Christ was offered up once for eternity. It is that single act by which our redemption was made possible. Only Christ could offer Himself up (John 10:17-18). He made His sacrifice one time. He died one time. It is not happening today because it was finished at Calvary. His work has already been accomplished. The benefits of the Cross are applied to us by faith (Romans 5:1-2; Romans 8:1).

          "[Responding to Romans 6:9-10] Excellent! It is Protestants who accuse us of killing Christ over and over. But we don’t believe that at all. We simply obey His Word and “do this in remembrance” of Him. We “re-present” the once for all sacrifice upon the altar as He commanded. Yes, we have an “altar”. It is the Table of the Lord. But it is an altar of Sacrifice (Hebrews 13:10)."

          There cannot be an atonement sacrifice without the death of a victim. This only goes to show that the Roman Catholic dogma of transubstantiation requires us to believe that which is totally unimaginable! In fact, the notion of "re-presenting" a once-for-all sacrifice sounds similar to the time traveling that we read of in science fiction literature.

           In Hebrews 13:10, it is not clear at all that the reference is to the eucharist. It seems rather to be talking about the cross, the salvation, and benefits of Christ, which we have in Him.

1 Timothy 3:16 And The Deity Of Jesus Christ

           "By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory." (1 Timothy 3:16)

           Some of the Greek New Testament manuscripts we possess contain a textual variant when it comes to the Greek word that is translated as "who" (i.e. who was revealed in the flesh) and the Greek word for "God." It seems likely for a number of reasons that the pronoun "who" is the original word in the original autographs penned by the Apostle Paul.

           It would have been tempting for a scribe who held to a high Christology, one who acknowledged Jesus Christ's full divinity, to change the word "who" for the "God" in emphasizing Christ's divinity. First of all, His deity is not the main aspect of the text in question. Further, the use of the pronoun is perfectly consistent with the manner in which Paul writes elsewhere in regard to Christ (Colossians 1:15; Philippians 2:5-11).

           Nonetheless, 1 Timothy 3:16 supports the deity of Christ in a subtle fashion. The language of "he was manifested in the flesh" suggests that He existed prior to His incarnation. He was not created, but took on human flesh. This text reflects a primitive Christian hymnal.

           The phrase "justified in the Spirit" refers to Christ resurrecting bodily from the grave (Romans 1:4; Ephesians 1:19-23). The phrase "seen of angels" points to Christ ascending into heaven (Acts 1:9-11). The phrase "proclaimed among the nations" refers to His glory being revealed by the Holy Spirit through the gospel to the world (1 Corinthians 15:1-6; 2 Corinthians 4:2-4). The phrase "taken up in glory" refers to Christ being exalted at the right hand of the Father (Acts 7:56-60). Jesus Christ is God incarnate. This note is also insightful as to how 1 Timothy 3:16 points to Christ's divinity:

           "Notably, the phrase “great indeed, is the mystery of godliness” may intentionally echo the phrase frequently heard in Ephesus: “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians” (Acts 19:28). If so, Paul is indirectly subverting the cult of Artemis, Ephesus’ patron goddess."