Hi All! Here are the timestamps for this insightful interview! 0:00 Intro 3:13 Interview Starts 4:25 Discussion Starts: Biblical Priesthood and the Eucharist 6:14 "Priest" is a 'Bad Word' to the World . 11:47 Who were the first priests in the Old Testament? 17:06 Jesus is a priest in the order of Melchizedek. What does that mean? 23:36 Didn't Jesus abolish the priesthood? 30:33 Does it matter if the priesthood is in the Bible? 33:16 Diving into Some Text: the Last Supper: the New Covenant. 39:21 On Rabbinic Teaching 42:11 Was Jesus really Anti-Liturgy? "Lightning Round" Questions 48:42 Why can't Women be priests? 52:25 Why do Catholics call priests "father" isn't that unbiblical? 55:01 Apostolic Succession, What's the Big Deal? 1:00:44 Why the church SHOULDN'T make celibacy optional . 1:05:26 My disagreement with William Lane Craig on Priestly Celibacy 1:09:19 Christ is our mediator, why would we need priests? 1:18:19 Andrew's New Bible Study on Hebrews ! 1:21:47 The Significance of the New Covenant 1:24:14 The most qualified take on the book of Hebrews on the Internet ! 1:26:26 Wrapping Up 1:27:37 Outro
I love Hebrews! When i was in my search period as i was converting from a protestant denomination to Catholic church i took a new look the letter. I read it with the possibility in mind that Jesus is really present in the Eucharist. The letter took on a whole new meaning and made so much more sense than it ever had before. I'm so grateful for my conversion and for the gracious gift of the priesthood. I have had some wonderful kind shepherding priests in my life thanks be to God.
@MattFradd Jesus is in the priesthood of Melchizedek because Melchizedek's sacrifice was one of bread and wine rather than of an animal and Christ similarly offers a sacrifice of his body and blood under the appearance of bread and wine. Also, the name "Melchizedek" in Hebrew literally means "king of righteousness" so this makes it even more clear that he is foreshadowing Christ. Since the Epistle to the Hebrews in the New Testament is written in Greek but uses the Hebrew "Melchizedek" as a proper name we know that it is referencing the Old Testament figure who met Abraham at Salem specifically and not just saying that Jesus "belongs to the priesthood of the king of righteousness", but the fact that the original Hebrew name "Melchizedek" means "king of righteousness" and that his sacrifice is of bread and wine, proves to us that Christ's Eucharistic sacrifice was foreshadowed in the Old Testament as early as to Abraham in the Book of Genesis. I learned this at a Bible study at my Melkite Byzantine Catholic church in Birmingham, Alabama.
The Prayer of Humble Access, used by the Anglican Liturgy found in the Book of Common Prayer Tradition, right before receiving the Eucharist: "We do not presume to come to this thy Table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in thy manifold and great mercies. We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy Table. But thou art the same Lord, whose property is always to have mercy: Grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body, and our souls washed through his most precious blood, and that we may evermore dwell in him, and he in us. Amen."
Enjoyed this one. Currently working through material from Aquinas and next on my shelf is Scott Hahn's Lamb's Supper. I need to read some material on Mary, the thinking around that, and how the 'Hail Mary' came to be. Any recommendations would be appreciated. Much Protestant love.
Scott Hahn wrote a really good book about Mary called "Hail, Holy Queen". I highly recommend it because it is really enlightening. There is also a really great book by Raniero Cantalemassa (Mary: Mirror of the church) that also quotes not so widely known texts about Mary by the early reformators and has a lot of quotes by the church fathers. These two books combined are pure gold for any protestant wanting to understand the catholic/orthodox/oriental view on Mary
This is an important topic and thanks for addressing it. Matt's videos and the wide variety of topics selected by him are worthy of appreciation. God bless. The priest is not another mediator. He is a mediator because he represents Christ to the Church - Christ who is the only mediator. Hence the priest stands in place of Christ to perform Christ's mediative role. Just as the priest represents Christ to the Church, each Christian represents Christ to the world around him. The world experiences Christ through every Christian and the Christian, through his intercession and holy presence (being a living tabernacle carrying the presence of Christ) fulfills the mediative action of Christ to the world. The Lord has said "He who listens to you listens to me" because, after the ascension He lives in us. The priest gives the people of God the Eucharist and they carry Him around wherever they go. When brothers live in unity in the Church, the precious ointment of anointing flows down from the head, to the beard, and then downwards to the skirt of the garment. (Psalms 133:1,2). The hierarchy is seen there: Head to neck, and from neck to the other parts of the body.
Blessings!! There's a Priest ( PADRE LUIS TORO from Venezuela, I've learned so much from his videos. I highly recommend him, I only wish his videos were translated to the english language.
According to TH-cam subtitles they made the temple "a den of Roberts" also "when they replaced judas with my thighs"........... O-o ? Y'all need to watch with subs, its amazing
18:47 the Shem Melchizedek tradition in Rabinnic Judaism actually has its origin in attempts to rewrite the Bible to disprove Christianity (the Masoretic text is the only textual tradition that contains dates in Genesis 11 that allow for Shem to be Melchizedek other than the Vulgate (which gets its Old Testament largely from and earlier Jewish tradition that the Masoretic Text came out of.)) The Septuagint (the Bible of the early Church), Josephus, and the Samaritan Pentateuch all provide ages that say that Shem dies hundreds of years before the birth of Abraham.
Not only are we not suppose to call men "father" but as the scripture continues, call no man "master" nor "teacher." Yet people have no problem with the last two. We can't be literal when we read and understand scripture. Exegesis is key...
Dr. Swafford misstates the Lutheran view on the Eucharist in the beginning of this when he said that they believe that the faith of the communicant is what transforms the host. Luther clearly stated that the worthy and unworthy alike partake in the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist. The only difference faith makes, is whether the communicant is receiving grace in the sacrament or is eating and drinking judgment on themselves; regardless, both are consuming the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. The reason Lutheran's do not engage in Eucharistic adoration, is because they believe that reception is an indispensable part of the sacramental act (Christ commanded, "take and eat") not because the faith of the communicant is what transforms the host.
But didn't Luther have a higher view of the Eucharist than most modern Lutheran denominations? I know Catholic theologians who received explanations from contemporary Lutheran theologians that sound more like what Swafford describes.
I think what he’s getting at is that Catholics believe that a validly ordained priest who may no longer believe is still able to consecrate the Eucharist because sacraments are ex opere operato (from the work performed) while Lutherans believe that Christ makes himself present in some way because of the belief of the those gathered (even if some non-believers may be present).
I think that he was referring to other Protestant groups and saying that Lutherans are different than those Protestants (but keep in mind that they do not have the same beliefs as the Catholic Church).
I listened to that part in the interview again, and I think that Dr. Swafford never attributed that teaching to Lutheran's but rather said that some Protestant (denomination unknown) told him that they (singular) believe that their faith transforms the host. I don't believe at any point Dr. Swafford said "Lutheran's believe (x)," but rather said "Lutherans hold a high view of the Eucharist." He talks super fast and I had to listen to it twice to clarify, but I don't think at any point he specifically attributed any doctrine to a specific denomination. I am tired though, so maybe I still didn't understand him lol
KLQL Kirin that is true if you are talking about the ELCA. But those hippies don’t count. One ELCA pastor in Denver built a literal golden idol of a vagina on her church to protest purity culture. The Lutheran confessions are still the standard for Lutheranism, and I am referring to those bodies that still abide by those confessions. Like the LCMS.
The question for me is this: How much of the new covenant has superseded the old? It should be quite clear to bible students that not every OT Jewish rite and ritual confronts us with an obligation to belief or obedience. I'm still exploring the issue but Hebrews seems a very compelling argument against a modern, intermediary priesthood.
in a way he was, maybe not a temple priest, bit did have a priestly roll, he was of levitical lineage. Christ was of Judean lineage and is the promised King even though he didn't reside in a palace.
Well his father Zechariah was a priest and if I’m not mistaken, firstborn sons were consecrated to God. If I’m right about that (please fact check me), that would mean John the Baptist was a firstborn son in the line of Aaron which would make him a priest, right?
1:03.00 Well not quite, I mean before celibacy even became normative in the west, and by normative I mean canonical. Up until the 12th century, the tradition and emphasis of western clergy was on continence. That is having a marriage like Joseph and Mary. Celibacy only came about as a result of parochial clergy not being able to meet the demands of the rigor and it was altogether easier to ask a single man to remain single than to get two married person to agree to abstain indefinitely from sexual intercourse. I think there is something beautiful in that practice and I think that's the original Roman tradition. But I can see how the fix can seem easier to accomplish and oversee though. Dr. Alan Fimister from St. John Vianney talks about this, as does the book Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy by Christian Cochini.
51:34 I think that in addition to what was said, it is clear that Jesus told the Apostles to spread the Good News and that the New Covenant is for all the nations (not just Jews). Implicit in that is that people will have different physical characteristics. Also, how can we know what exact eye or hair color the Apostles had? Even if most Middle Easterns have dark hair and eyes, King David had red hair.
I'm sorry but the idea that Shem is Melchizedek is crazy. It's based off of Jewish interpolations of the genealogies, the LXX, Samaritan Pentateuch and Josephus all point to the original genealogies. The Jews wanted Shem to be Melchizedek because then it would make the author of Hebrews look wrong in the description of Melchizedek.
In the Jewish tradition a priest can only be a descendant of Arron (the tribe of Levi). A priest made the sacrifices to G_D. After the Romans destroyed the Temple in 76 A.D. the primary duties of the priests could not be performed.
Christians believe that Jesus is the Messiah spoken of as "a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek" (Ps. 110:4), and so Jesus plays the role of the king-priest once and for all. According to the writer of Hebrews (7:13-17) Jesus is considered a priest in the order of Melchizedek because, like Melchizedek, Jesus was not a descendant of Aaron, and thus would not qualify for the Jewish priesthood under the Law of Moses.
The priest give the Eucarestia and confess the persons. The Apostoles were bishops and Jesus create the priests bishops during the Last Dinner. Luther is in the hell a blissfull nun saw him. If you do a mortal sin the Catholic priest is the only one who can leave it out. I am sorry for you but protestants are not cristians who become it only with Catholic battesimo (use Google Translate) and the priests receives a call they hear something. They belong to God they are consacrati a Dio (use Google Translate again).
You can't say, with any certainty, that anyone is in hell right now and I would greatly reconsider listening to anyone who claims they know how God has judged, or will judge, someone. Most Protestants are Christians by virtue of a valid, Trinitarian baptism.
A "bishop" is a residential pastor who presides in a stable manner over the church in a city and its environs. The apostles were missionaries and founders of churches; there is no evidence, nor is it likely at all, that any one of them ever took up permanent residence in a particular church as its bishop (Catholic scholar -Sullivan F.A. From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the early church. Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ), 2001, p. 14).
Even non Catholic baptisms are recognized by the Church so long as they were done with proper form (using the trinitarian formula given by Jesus in the Bible), matter (water) and intent (the intent to do what the Church does). One does not have to be baptized to validly baptize someone. Many Protestant baptisms are thus recognized, but a lay Catholic should not baptize someone unless it is an emergency. Protestants, however, do not share in the same sacramental life (except *perhaps* Catholic priests who, unfortunately, have become Protestant but use proper matter, form and intention, in which case such sacraments would be valid but illicit, unless the priest hears a dying person's confession).
Do you have any Traditional Protestants you bring on your show? Anglicans and Lutherans, rather than Baptists and non-denominationals? Because you often critique the modern Evangelicals and broad brush them as Protestant critiques. Thankfully, y'all will sometimes catch yourselves and point out that there are differences, but you still do it a lot even in this video.
Christ our High Priest has made one sacrifice for sin for all time (Hebrews 10:12), and there is no more sacrifice for sin that can be made (Hebrews 10:26).
1 Timothy 2:5 5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 1 Timothy 4:1-4 4 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. 4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: Hebrews 10:10-12 10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
According to Exod. 19:6 all Israelites are priests and this prefigures general priesthood of New Testament (1 Peter 2:5, Revelation 1:6). Yet God also established levitical priesthood, comprising priests and levites - the former are Aaron and his male descendants (of the tribe of Levi) and the latter are males belonging to the rest of the tribe of Levi. Jer. 33:18 prophesied that levitical priesthood will offer sacrifice continually and Isaiah 66:21 prophesied that God will take some from all nations as priests and levites or they are no longer must be Jews. Levitical priesthood of Judaism still exists - any male Jew with surname Cohen (or Cohn or Coen etc.) was born priest but without Jerusalem Temple, destroyed in Ad 70, they can no longer offer sacrifice. Catholic priests and deacons are fulfillment of Jer 33:18 and Isaiah 66:21 as priests and levites of New Testament. New Testament does not mention them but Scripture nowhere says all its prophecies must be fulfilled before the last book of New Testament was written and must be stated explicitly in New Testament.
Just from Catholic You can’t apply Jewish doctrine to the church, they’re not the same, two totally different entities. In Christ one is a priest. No need for an unmarried man trying to act holy to intercede for me. 1 Peter 2:9 9 But YE are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light; (Notice the word Holy? There aren’t any in this day in age) The context is not pointing to a group of unmarried men dressed in black but rather those who are saved. Context has been and will always be a killer to the private interpretation of Rome. Read the words and leave them alone, you won’t find catholic teaching in the scripture unless you add to the word or run to an outside source like a fallible church father.
@@rightlydividing7607 It is NOT Jewish doctrine but that what Scripture says in her 33:18 unless you do not consider Jeremiah to be Scripture. Catholics do believe in general priesthood of all baptized, whether they are males or females, married or unmarried.
Just from Catholic It’s NOT Jewish? Please enlighten me without a private interpretation before I start unloading the rest of Jeremiah to prove other wise. The whole Bible is for me, but not all of it is written to me. No wonder Catholics are messed up in the scripture, they apply scripture doctrinally to themselves while it’s meant for Israel or a Jew.
@@rightlydividing7607 Let me ask you, how do you understand Jer 33:18? It is a prophecy that must be fulfilled. You wrote "The whole Bible is for me, but not all of it is written to me" - so you are doing cherry picking, i.e. only choose verses that meet your agenda.
the essence of Protestant Reformed opposition to the Christian priesthood is it did not exist until 250 AD and is a contradiction of the Book of Hebrews.
Yet, Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, gave His ordained ministers the authority to forgive sins in His name, ( John 20:23, Jsmes 5:14), and offer up His once and perfect Sacrifice to the Father, for we sin daily, ( Luke 22:19, 1 Corinthians 5:8, 10:16,18). You are in my prayers! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink
Old Testament priests were chosen by God, not self-appointed; and they were chosen for a purpose: to serve God with their lives by offering up sacrifices. The priesthood served as a picture or "type" of the coming ministry of Jesus Christ--a picture that was then no longer needed once His sacrifice on the cross was completed. When the thick temple veil that covered the doorway to the Holy of Holies was torn in two by God at the time of Christ’s death (Matthew 27:51), God was indicating that the Old Testament priesthood was no longer necessary. Now people could come directly to God through the great High Priest, Jesus Christ (Hebrews 4:14-16). There are now no earthly mediators between God and man as existed in the Old Testament priesthood (1 Timothy 2:5).
According to Exod. 19:6 all Israelites are priests and this prefigures general priesthood of New Testament (1 Peter 2:5, Revelation 1:6). Yet God also established levitical priesthood, comprising priests and levites - the former are Aaron and his male descendants (of the tribe of Levi) and the latter are males belonging to the rest of the tribe of Levi. Jer. 33:18 prophesied that levitical priesthood will offer sacrifice continually and Isaiah 66:21 prophesied that God will take some from all nations as priests and levites or they are no longer must be Jews. Levitical priesthood of Judaism still exists - any male Jew with surname Cohen (or Cohn or Coen etc.) was born priest but without Jerusalem Temple, destroyed in Ad 70, they can no longer offer sacrifice. Catholic priests and deacons are fulfillment of Jer 33:18 and Isaiah 66:21 as priests and levites of New Testament. New Testament does not mention them but Scripture nowhere says all its prophecies must be fulfilled before the last book of New Testament was written and must be stated explicitly in New Testament.
@@justfromcatholic What was the purpose of priests in the old testament and what is the purpose of priests now (for catholics) and can u tell me the symbol of the veil being broken in 2 parts when jesus died? Matthew 27:51
@@roselaqueen3105 Priests of OT offered sacrifice in the Temple, outside the Holy of Holies. Only High Priest of OT can enter the Holy of Holies or Sanctuary (a man-made sanctuary) and only once a year to offer sacrifice. The Holy of Holies are separated by veil. The High Priest of New Covenant is Christ who when He died on the cross, offered Himself as sacrifice in heavenly sanctuary. That is whyt He does not need to do it every year like High priest of OT, interestingly, NOT from the year He was crucified, but from the foundation of the world (Heb 9:26). This relates to Rev 13:8 that says the Lamb has been sacrificed from the foundation of the world. The Greek verb "slain" is in passive perfect tense. Unlike that of English, Greek passive perfect tense implied a completed action in the past (in this case at foundation of the world) with continuing result to the present. In other word Christ remains slain ever since. His sacrifice appeared once for all in our dimension of time (Heb. 9:26). repeated) the
@@justfromcatholic Yes and the Veil was broken when Jesus died. The broken veil has so much meaning. So what is the purpose of prietes now for catholics?
@@roselaqueen3105 My earlier response was truncated for unknown reason. To answer your question: priests of New Covenant make present (NOT repeat) the same sacrifice Christ made on the cross as He has been slain from the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8). That explains why the veil was torn when Christ died as both High Priest and priests now offer the same sacrifice.
One mediator for gaining salvation, not necessarily for intercession and sacrifice for asking for the promise and cooperation of salvation. You too are a priest, though not necessarily ordained or ministerial, when you offer prayers to God on behalf of another. The same can be said for the saints in Heaven, taking our petitions to the Lord like sweet incense.
1:03.00 Well not quite, I mean before celibacy even became normative in the west, and by normative I mean canonical. Up until the 12th century, the tradition and emphasis of western clergy was on continence. That is having a marriage like Joseph and Mary. Celibacy only came about as a result of parochial clergy not being able to meet the demands of the rigor and it was altogether easier to ask a single man to remain single than to get two married person to agree to abstain indefinitely from sexual intercourse. I think there is something beautiful in that practice and I think that's the original Roman tradition. But I can see how the fix can seem easier to accomplish and oversee though. Dr. Alan Fimister from St. John Vianney talks about this, as does the book Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy by Christian Cochini.
Hi All! Here are the timestamps for this insightful interview!
0:00 Intro
3:13 Interview Starts
4:25 Discussion Starts: Biblical Priesthood and the Eucharist
6:14 "Priest" is a 'Bad Word' to the World
.
11:47 Who were the first priests in the Old Testament?
17:06 Jesus is a priest in the order of Melchizedek. What does that mean?
23:36 Didn't Jesus abolish the priesthood?
30:33 Does it matter if the priesthood is in the Bible?
33:16 Diving into Some Text: the Last Supper: the New Covenant.
39:21 On Rabbinic Teaching
42:11 Was Jesus really Anti-Liturgy?
"Lightning Round" Questions
48:42 Why can't Women be priests?
52:25 Why do Catholics call priests "father" isn't that unbiblical?
55:01 Apostolic Succession, What's the Big Deal?
1:00:44 Why the church SHOULDN'T make celibacy optional
.
1:05:26 My disagreement with William Lane Craig on Priestly Celibacy
1:09:19 Christ is our mediator, why would we need priests?
1:18:19 Andrew's New Bible Study on Hebrews
!
1:21:47 The Significance of the New Covenant
1:24:14 The most qualified take on the book of Hebrews on the Internet
!
1:26:26 Wrapping Up
1:27:37 Outro
Timestamps! Thank you
Where is the link for the study of hebrews?
Bless you!
I love Hebrews! When i was in my search period as i was converting from a protestant denomination to Catholic church i took a new look the letter. I read it with the possibility in mind that Jesus is really present in the Eucharist. The letter took on a whole new meaning and made so much more sense than it ever had before. I'm so grateful for my conversion and for the gracious gift of the priesthood. I have had some wonderful kind shepherding priests in my life thanks be to God.
Wish I could do multiple thumbs up! Great episode, thank you Matt and Dr.Swafford, God bless you both in your ministries.
@MattFradd Jesus is in the priesthood of Melchizedek because Melchizedek's sacrifice was one of bread and wine rather than of an animal and Christ similarly offers a sacrifice of his body and blood under the appearance of bread and wine. Also, the name "Melchizedek" in Hebrew literally means "king of righteousness" so this makes it even more clear that he is foreshadowing Christ. Since the Epistle to the Hebrews in the New Testament is written in Greek but uses the Hebrew "Melchizedek" as a proper name we know that it is referencing the Old Testament figure who met Abraham at Salem specifically and not just saying that Jesus "belongs to the priesthood of the king of righteousness", but the fact that the original Hebrew name "Melchizedek" means "king of righteousness" and that his sacrifice is of bread and wine, proves to us that Christ's Eucharistic sacrifice was foreshadowed in the Old Testament as early as to Abraham in the Book of Genesis. I learned this at a Bible study at my Melkite Byzantine Catholic church in Birmingham, Alabama.
The Prayer of Humble Access, used by the Anglican Liturgy found in the Book of Common Prayer Tradition, right before receiving the Eucharist:
"We do not presume to come to this thy Table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in thy manifold and great mercies. We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy Table. But thou art the same Lord, whose property is always to have mercy: Grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body, and our souls washed through his most precious blood, and that we may evermore dwell in him, and he in us. Amen."
You can search Mr Brant pitre on. Jesus... Jewish roots of. The Eucaristy, explains very well the institution of priesthood.
Can I ask what chapter in, I believe you meant to say Jewish roots of the "Eucharist", that he does?
Enjoyed this one. Currently working through material from Aquinas and next on my shelf is Scott Hahn's Lamb's Supper. I need to read some material on Mary, the thinking around that, and how the 'Hail Mary' came to be. Any recommendations would be appreciated. Much Protestant love.
Scott Hahn wrote a really good book about Mary called "Hail, Holy Queen". I highly recommend it because it is really enlightening. There is also a really great book by Raniero Cantalemassa (Mary: Mirror of the church) that also quotes not so widely known texts about Mary by the early reformators and has a lot of quotes by the church fathers. These two books combined are pure gold for any protestant wanting to understand the catholic/orthodox/oriental view on Mary
This is an important topic and thanks for addressing it. Matt's videos and the wide variety of topics selected by him are worthy of appreciation. God bless.
The priest is not another mediator. He is a mediator because he represents Christ to the Church - Christ who is the only mediator. Hence the priest stands in place of Christ to perform Christ's mediative role. Just as the priest represents Christ to the Church, each Christian represents Christ to the world around him. The world experiences Christ through every Christian and the Christian, through his intercession and holy presence (being a living tabernacle carrying the presence of Christ) fulfills the mediative action of Christ to the world. The Lord has said "He who listens to you listens to me" because, after the ascension He lives in us. The priest gives the people of God the Eucharist and they carry Him around wherever they go. When brothers live in unity in the Church, the precious ointment of anointing flows down from the head, to the beard, and then downwards to the skirt of the garment. (Psalms 133:1,2). The hierarchy is seen there: Head to neck, and from neck to the other parts of the body.
Orlando OSB and only priests carry Christ in them? I think not. How about Mary????
Blessings!! There's a Priest ( PADRE LUIS TORO from Venezuela, I've learned so much from his videos. I highly recommend him, I only wish his videos were translated to the english language.
Wow awesome explanation
HERMANO 🙏
What is the book about Jesus and purity laws that Dr. Swafford mentions?
Beard is looking good!
According to TH-cam subtitles they made the temple "a den of Roberts" also "when they replaced judas with my thighs"........... O-o ?
Y'all need to watch with subs, its amazing
Which English Bibles does the Catholic Church endorse and/or recommend?
18:47 the Shem Melchizedek tradition in Rabinnic Judaism actually has its origin in attempts to rewrite the Bible to disprove Christianity (the Masoretic text is the only textual tradition that contains dates in Genesis 11 that allow for Shem to be Melchizedek other than the Vulgate (which gets its Old Testament largely from and earlier Jewish tradition that the Masoretic Text came out of.)) The Septuagint (the Bible of the early Church), Josephus, and the Samaritan Pentateuch all provide ages that say that Shem dies hundreds of years before the birth of Abraham.
Not only are we not suppose to call men "father" but as the scripture continues, call no man "master" nor "teacher." Yet people have no problem with the last two. We can't be literal when we read and understand scripture. Exegesis is key...
Dr. Swafford misstates the Lutheran view on the Eucharist in the beginning of this when he said that they believe that the faith of the communicant is what transforms the host. Luther clearly stated that the worthy and unworthy alike partake in the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist. The only difference faith makes, is whether the communicant is receiving grace in the sacrament or is eating and drinking judgment on themselves; regardless, both are consuming the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. The reason Lutheran's do not engage in Eucharistic adoration, is because they believe that reception is an indispensable part of the sacramental act (Christ commanded, "take and eat") not because the faith of the communicant is what transforms the host.
But didn't Luther have a higher view of the Eucharist than most modern Lutheran denominations? I know Catholic theologians who received explanations from contemporary Lutheran theologians that sound more like what Swafford describes.
I think what he’s getting at is that Catholics believe that a validly ordained priest who may no longer believe is still able to consecrate the Eucharist because sacraments are ex opere operato (from the work performed) while Lutherans believe that Christ makes himself present in some way because of the belief of the those gathered (even if some non-believers may be present).
I think that he was referring to other Protestant groups and saying that Lutherans are different than those Protestants (but keep in mind that they do not have the same beliefs as the Catholic Church).
I listened to that part in the interview again, and I think that Dr. Swafford never attributed that teaching to Lutheran's but rather said that some Protestant (denomination unknown) told him that they (singular) believe that their faith transforms the host. I don't believe at any point Dr. Swafford said "Lutheran's believe (x)," but rather said "Lutherans hold a high view of the Eucharist." He talks super fast and I had to listen to it twice to clarify, but I don't think at any point he specifically attributed any doctrine to a specific denomination. I am tired though, so maybe I still didn't understand him lol
KLQL Kirin that is true if you are talking about the ELCA. But those hippies don’t count. One ELCA pastor in Denver built a literal golden idol of a vagina on her church to protest purity culture. The Lutheran confessions are still the standard for Lutheranism, and I am referring to those bodies that still abide by those confessions. Like the LCMS.
Could not hear Dr Swafford very well.
The question for me is this: How much of the new covenant has superseded the old? It should be quite clear to bible students that not every OT Jewish rite and ritual confronts us with an obligation to belief or obedience. I'm still exploring the issue but Hebrews seems a very compelling argument against a modern, intermediary priesthood.
Was John the Baptist a priest?
in a way he was, maybe not a temple priest, bit did have a priestly roll, he was of levitical lineage.
Christ was of Judean lineage and is the promised King even though he didn't reside in a palace.
Well his father Zechariah was a priest and if I’m not mistaken, firstborn sons were consecrated to God. If I’m right about that (please fact check me), that would mean John the Baptist was a firstborn son in the line of Aaron which would make him a priest, right?
Man this is long is there a condensed video or something.
1:03.00 Well not quite, I mean before celibacy even became normative in the west, and by normative I mean canonical. Up until the 12th century, the tradition and emphasis of western clergy was on continence. That is having a marriage like Joseph and Mary. Celibacy only came about as a result of parochial clergy not being able to meet the demands of the rigor and it was altogether easier to ask a single man to remain single than to get two married person to agree to abstain indefinitely from sexual intercourse. I think there is something beautiful in that practice and I think that's the original Roman tradition. But I can see how the fix can seem easier to accomplish and oversee though. Dr. Alan Fimister from St. John Vianney talks about this, as does the book Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy by Christian Cochini.
51:34 I think that in addition to what was said, it is clear that Jesus told the Apostles to spread the Good News and that the New Covenant is for all the nations (not just Jews). Implicit in that is that people will have different physical characteristics. Also, how can we know what exact eye or hair color the Apostles had? Even if most Middle Easterns have dark hair and eyes, King David had red hair.
You should interview dr james white next time
Why? That dude is a lost cause. He just makes things up, and thinks he wins all his debates😅
Matt's kinda looking like Gavin McInnes
I'm sorry but the idea that Shem is Melchizedek is crazy. It's based off of Jewish interpolations of the genealogies, the LXX, Samaritan Pentateuch and Josephus all point to the original genealogies. The Jews wanted Shem to be Melchizedek because then it would make the author of Hebrews look wrong in the description of Melchizedek.
In the Jewish tradition a priest can only be a descendant of Arron (the tribe of Levi). A priest made the sacrifices to G_D. After the Romans destroyed the Temple in 76 A.D. the primary duties of the priests could not be performed.
Christians believe that Jesus is the Messiah spoken of as "a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek" (Ps. 110:4), and so Jesus plays the role of the king-priest once and for all. According to the writer of Hebrews (7:13-17) Jesus is considered a priest in the order of Melchizedek because, like Melchizedek, Jesus was not a descendant of Aaron, and thus would not qualify for the Jewish priesthood under the Law of Moses.
The priest give the Eucarestia and confess the persons. The Apostoles were bishops and Jesus create the priests bishops during the Last Dinner. Luther is in the hell a blissfull nun saw him. If you do a mortal sin the Catholic priest is the only one who can leave it out. I am sorry for you but protestants are not cristians who become it only with Catholic battesimo (use Google Translate) and the priests receives a call they hear something. They belong to God they are consacrati a Dio (use Google Translate again).
You can't say, with any certainty, that anyone is in hell right now and I would greatly reconsider listening to anyone who claims they know how God has judged, or will judge, someone. Most Protestants are Christians by virtue of a valid, Trinitarian baptism.
A "bishop" is a residential pastor who presides in a stable manner over the church in a city and its environs. The apostles were missionaries and founders of churches; there is no evidence, nor is it likely at all, that any one of them ever took up permanent residence in a particular church as its bishop (Catholic scholar -Sullivan F.A. From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the early church. Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ), 2001, p. 14).
Even non Catholic baptisms are recognized by the Church so long as they were done with proper form (using the trinitarian formula given by Jesus in the Bible), matter (water) and intent (the intent to do what the Church does). One does not have to be baptized to validly baptize someone. Many Protestant baptisms are thus recognized, but a lay Catholic should not baptize someone unless it is an emergency. Protestants, however, do not share in the same sacramental life (except *perhaps* Catholic priests who, unfortunately, have become Protestant but use proper matter, form and intention, in which case such sacraments would be valid but illicit, unless the priest hears a dying person's confession).
Do you have any Traditional Protestants you bring on your show? Anglicans and Lutherans, rather than Baptists and non-denominationals? Because you often critique the modern Evangelicals and broad brush them as Protestant critiques. Thankfully, y'all will sometimes catch yourselves and point out that there are differences, but you still do it a lot even in this video.
Actually, Nominalism is the problem that leads to secularism, along with our overuse of Aristotle. Most scholars recognize that.
Overuse of Aristotle? I would've assumed the opposite
Can you explain what you mean by the "overuse of Aristotle"?
Christ our High Priest has made one sacrifice for sin for all time (Hebrews 10:12), and there is no more sacrifice for sin that can be made (Hebrews 10:26).
1 Timothy 2:5
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
1 Timothy 4:1-4
4 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
Hebrews 10:10-12
10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
According to Exod. 19:6 all Israelites are priests and this prefigures general priesthood of New Testament (1 Peter 2:5, Revelation 1:6). Yet God also established levitical priesthood, comprising priests and levites - the former are Aaron and his male descendants (of the tribe of Levi) and the latter are males belonging to the rest of the tribe of Levi. Jer. 33:18 prophesied that levitical priesthood will offer sacrifice continually and Isaiah 66:21 prophesied that God will take some from all nations as priests and levites or they are no longer must be Jews. Levitical priesthood of Judaism still exists - any male Jew with surname Cohen (or Cohn or Coen etc.) was born priest but without Jerusalem Temple, destroyed in Ad 70, they can no longer offer sacrifice. Catholic priests and deacons are fulfillment of Jer 33:18 and Isaiah 66:21 as priests and levites of New Testament. New Testament does not mention them but Scripture nowhere says all its prophecies must be fulfilled before the last book of New Testament was written and must be stated explicitly in New Testament.
Just from Catholic
You can’t apply Jewish doctrine to the church, they’re not the same, two totally different entities. In Christ one is a priest. No need for an unmarried man trying to act holy to intercede for me.
1 Peter 2:9
9 But YE are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light; (Notice the word Holy? There aren’t any in this day in age)
The context is not pointing to a group of unmarried men dressed in black but rather those who are saved. Context has been and will always be a killer to the private interpretation of Rome. Read the words and leave them alone, you won’t find catholic teaching in the scripture unless you add to the word or run to an outside source like a fallible church father.
@@rightlydividing7607 It is NOT Jewish doctrine but that what Scripture says in her 33:18 unless you do not consider Jeremiah to be Scripture. Catholics do believe in general priesthood of all baptized, whether they are males or females, married or unmarried.
Just from Catholic
It’s NOT Jewish? Please enlighten me without a private interpretation before I start unloading the rest of Jeremiah to prove other wise. The whole Bible is for me, but not all of it is written to me. No wonder Catholics are messed up in the scripture, they apply scripture doctrinally to themselves while it’s meant for Israel or a Jew.
@@rightlydividing7607 Let me ask you, how do you understand Jer 33:18? It is a prophecy that must be fulfilled. You wrote "The whole Bible is for me, but not all of it is written to me" - so you are doing cherry picking, i.e. only choose verses that meet your agenda.
the essence of Protestant Reformed opposition to the Christian priesthood is it did not exist until 250 AD and is a contradiction of the Book of Hebrews.
Also I think we have to make appropriate changes in the Novus Ordo mass so that it can clearly and unambiguously represent the notion of sacrifice
Yet, Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, gave His ordained ministers the authority to forgive sins in His name, ( John 20:23, Jsmes 5:14), and offer up His once and perfect Sacrifice to the Father, for we sin daily, ( Luke 22:19, 1 Corinthians 5:8, 10:16,18). You are in my prayers! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink
Old Testament priests were chosen by God, not self-appointed; and they were chosen for a purpose: to serve God with their lives by offering up sacrifices. The priesthood served as a picture or "type" of the coming ministry of Jesus Christ--a picture that was then no longer needed once His sacrifice on the cross was completed. When the thick temple veil that covered the doorway to the Holy of Holies was torn in two by God at the time of Christ’s death (Matthew 27:51), God was indicating that the Old Testament priesthood was no longer necessary. Now people could come directly to God through the great High Priest, Jesus Christ (Hebrews 4:14-16). There are now no earthly mediators between God and man as existed in the Old Testament priesthood (1 Timothy 2:5).
According to Exod. 19:6 all Israelites are priests and this prefigures general priesthood of New Testament (1 Peter 2:5, Revelation 1:6). Yet God also established levitical priesthood, comprising priests and levites - the former are Aaron and his male descendants (of the tribe of Levi) and the latter are males belonging to the rest of the tribe of Levi. Jer. 33:18 prophesied that levitical priesthood will offer sacrifice continually and Isaiah 66:21 prophesied that God will take some from all nations as priests and levites or they are no longer must be Jews. Levitical priesthood of Judaism still exists - any male Jew with surname Cohen (or Cohn or Coen etc.) was born priest but without Jerusalem Temple, destroyed in Ad 70, they can no longer offer sacrifice. Catholic priests and deacons are fulfillment of Jer 33:18 and Isaiah 66:21 as priests and levites of New Testament. New Testament does not mention them but Scripture nowhere says all its prophecies must be fulfilled before the last book of New Testament was written and must be stated explicitly in New Testament.
@@justfromcatholic What was the purpose of priests in the old testament and what is the purpose of priests now (for catholics) and can u tell me the symbol of the veil being broken in 2 parts when jesus died? Matthew 27:51
@@roselaqueen3105 Priests of OT offered sacrifice in the Temple, outside the Holy of Holies. Only High Priest of OT can enter the Holy of Holies or Sanctuary (a man-made sanctuary) and only once a year to offer sacrifice. The Holy of Holies are separated by veil.
The High Priest of New Covenant is Christ who when He died on the cross, offered Himself as sacrifice in heavenly sanctuary. That is whyt He does not need to do it every year like High priest of OT, interestingly, NOT from the year He was crucified, but from the foundation of the world (Heb 9:26). This relates to Rev 13:8 that says the Lamb has been sacrificed from the foundation of the world. The Greek verb "slain" is in passive perfect tense. Unlike that of English, Greek passive perfect tense implied a completed action in the past (in this case at foundation of the world) with continuing result to the present. In other word Christ remains slain ever since. His sacrifice appeared once for all in our dimension of time (Heb. 9:26). repeated) the
@@justfromcatholic Yes and the Veil was broken when Jesus died. The broken veil has so much meaning. So what is the purpose of prietes now for catholics?
@@roselaqueen3105 My earlier response was truncated for unknown reason. To answer your question: priests of New Covenant make present (NOT repeat) the same sacrifice Christ made on the cross as He has been slain from the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8). That explains why the veil was torn when Christ died as both High Priest and priests now offer the same sacrifice.
MAKE A STRIVE21 INSTAGRAM
1 Timothy 2: 5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus
One mediator for gaining salvation, not necessarily for intercession and sacrifice for asking for the promise and cooperation of salvation.
You too are a priest, though not necessarily ordained or ministerial, when you offer prayers to God on behalf of another.
The same can be said for the saints in Heaven, taking our petitions to the Lord like sweet incense.
@@AJKPenguin Jesus is the only mediator and therebis no other . Now tell me what was the purposenof priests in the old testament??
This is bull. They know Damm well that the priesthood is over! He just fluffed, Roman Catholic is wrong
1:03.00 Well not quite, I mean before celibacy even became normative in the west, and by normative I mean canonical. Up until the 12th century, the tradition and emphasis of western clergy was on continence. That is having a marriage like Joseph and Mary. Celibacy only came about as a result of parochial clergy not being able to meet the demands of the rigor and it was altogether easier to ask a single man to remain single than to get two married person to agree to abstain indefinitely from sexual intercourse. I think there is something beautiful in that practice and I think that's the original Roman tradition. But I can see how the fix can seem easier to accomplish and oversee though. Dr. Alan Fimister from St. John Vianney talks about this, as does the book Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy by Christian Cochini.
Also Matt, you should do a bible study with aquinas on what he thinks the renting of the veil means. That'd would be cool to see.