/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

St John Chrysostom on Hebrews 9:15-23:

>“And for this cause He is the Mediator of the New Testament, that by means of death for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first Testament, they which are called might receive the promise of an eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead, otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. Whereupon neither the first [testament] was dedicated without blood.”

>[1.] It was probable that many of those who were more weakly would especially distrust the promises of Christ because He had died. Paul accordingly out of a superabundance introduced this illustration, deriving it from common custom. Of what kind is it? He says, “indeed, on this very account we ought to be of good courage.” On what account? Because testaments are established and obtain their force when those who have made them are not living, but dead. “And for this cause,” he says, “He is the Mediator of the New Testament.” A Testament is made towards the last day, [the day] of death.

>And a testament is of this character: It makes some heirs, and some disinherited. So in this case also: “I will that where I am,” Christ says, “they also may be.” And again of the disinherited, hear Him saying, “I pray not for” all, “but for them that believe on Me through their word.” Again, a testament has relation both to the testator, and to the legatees; so that they have some things to receive, and some to do. So also in this case. For after having made promises innumerable, He demands also something from them, saying, “a new commandment I give unto you.” Again, a testament ought to have witnesses. Hear Him again saying, “I am one that bear witness of Myself, and He that sent Me beareth witness of Me.” And again, “He shall testify of Me,” speaking of the Comforter. The twelve Apostles too He sent, saying, “Bear ye witness before God.”

>[2.] “And for this cause” (he says) “He is the Mediator of the New Testament.” What is a “Mediator”? A mediator is not lord of the thing of which he is mediator, but the thing belongs to one person, and the mediator is another: as for instance, the mediator of a marriage is not the bridegroom, but one who aids him who is about to be married. So then also here: The Son became Mediator between the Father and us. The Father willed not to leave us this inheritance, but was wroth against us, and was displeased [with us] as being estranged [from Him]; He accordingly became Mediator between us and Him, and prevailed with Him.

>And what then? How did He become Mediator? He brought words from [Him] and brought [them to us], conveying over what came from the Father to us, and adding His own death thereto. We had offended: we ought to have died: He died for us and made us worthy of the Testament. By this is the Testament secure, in that henceforward it is not made for the unworthy. At the beginning indeed, He made His dispositions as a father for sons; but after we had become unworthy, there was no longer need of a testament, but of punishment.

>Why then (he would say) dost thou think upon the law? For it placed us in a condition of so great sin, that we could never have been saved, if our Lord had not died for us; the law would not have had power, for it is weak.

>[3.] And he established this no longer from common custom only, but also from what happened under the old [Testament]: which especially influenced them. There was no one who died there: how then could that [Testament] be firm? In the same way (he says). How? For blood was there also, as there is blood here. And if it was not the blood of the Christ, do not be surprised; for it was a type. “Whereupon,” he says, “neither was the first [Testament] dedicated without blood.”

>What is “was dedicated”? was confirmed, was ratified. The word “whereupon” means “for this cause.” It was needful that the symbol of the Testament should be also that of death.

>For why (tell me) is the book of the testament sprinkled? “For” (he says) “when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, This is the blood of the testament, which God hath enjoined unto you.” Tell me then why is the book of the testament sprinkled, and also the people, except on account of the precious blood, figured from the first? Why “with hyssop”? It is close and retentive. And why the “water”? It shows forth also the cleansing by water. And why the “wool”? this also [was used], that the blood might be retained. In this place blood and water show forth the same thing, for baptism is His passion.

>And by the Holy of Holies he means Heaven;

No that is not what is meant for this specifically. Because Heaven is defined as space/firmament, or where the sun is in Genesis 1:8.

> inasmuch as it was permitted to all to tread it, and in the same house the place was manifest where the priests stood, where the Jews, the Proselytes, the Grecians, the Nazarites. Since, therefore even Gentiles were permitted to tread it, he calls it “worldly.” For surely the Jews were not “the world.”

This is provablely false. In Genesis 21:10-13 and Exodus 38:21 only the leviticul priesthood i.e physical jews/israelites were allowed to sacrifice as that's what God said.

Care to even begin explaining the other verses?

St John Chrysostom on Hebrews 9:24-26:

>[3.] “Nor yet that He should offer Himself often, as the High Priest entereth into the Holy place every year with blood of others.” Seest Thou how many are the differences? The “often” for the “once”; “the blood of others,” for “His own.” Great is the distance. He is Himself then both victim and Priest and sacrifice. For if it had not been so, and it had been necessary to offer many sacrifices, He must have been many times crucified. “For then,” he says, “He must often have suffered since the foundation of the world.”

>In this place he has also veiled over something. “But now once more in the end of the world.” Why “at the end of the world”? After the many sins. If therefore, it had taken place at the beginning, then no one would have believed; and He must not die a second time, all would have been useless. But since later, there were many transgressions, with reason He then appeared: which he expresses in another place also, “Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound. But now once in the end of the world, hath He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.”

>A Testament is made towards the last day, [the day] of death.

Umm Jesus is alive forever more see revelation 1:18

>if our Lord had not died for us; the law would not have had power, for it is weak.

This is provably wrong. Saints were going to hell or "abrahams bosom" before Jesus died for a second time and on the cross. See Luke 16.

This guy isn't even acknowledging the "first covenant" letalone explaining it.

>After the many sins. If therefore, it had taken place at the beginning, then no one would have believed; and He must not die a second time, all would have been useless.

He ignores that people could still physically die and because of luke 16 were going to hell. He doesn't even back most of what he is saying literally. I don't understand how he got "no one would have believed" from this even.

>A Testament is made towards the last day, [the day] of death.

This guy is literally saying that this verse Hebrews 9:17

>For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

Means something totally different then what it says. He then proceeds to provide no explanation whatsoever as to how he came to his conclusion. Which is blatently against what 1 peter 1:20 says about private interpretations.

This (((fool's))) private interpretation which he can not explain can be summed up by Matthew 15:3

>But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

And Matthew 15:6-9

>And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus ye have made the commandment of God by none effect by your tradition.

>Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying

>This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoreth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.

>But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

>>538023

>Here is what the Fathers

Also why are you calling men from earth your Father? Know ye not of Matthew 23:9?

>And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

Theodoret on Romans 8:5-9:

>And having thus touched upon the subject of righteousness, he goes on to an exhortation to it, and having said, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit, adds, 5. For they that are after the flesh, do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit, the things of the Spirit; and in like manner in another place, "If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit," meaning here by the Spirit, the grace of the Spirit, and teaching that he who follows it, both thinks and does the things agreeable thereto, and he that is enslaved to the flesh, that is, to the passions of the body, has deprived himself of his freedom. 6. For the inclination of the flesh is death. He says not the flesh, but the inclination of the flesh, that is, the breaking forth of the passions, for the recompense of sinners is death; but the inclination of the Spirit is life and peace, for he who lives after the Spirit gains peace with God; 7. Because the inclination of the flesh is enmity against God. Again he condemns the inclination of the flesh, that is, the tyranny of the passions which he declares are at variance with God. For they are not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be; for how is it possible that he who has admitted the tyranny of the passions, should embrace the service of God, while yet choosing to serve sin? 8. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. He does not bid us go out of the body, but be freed from the inclination of the flesh, as is shown by what follows: 9. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. For it is evident that they who received these his instructions were not devoid of the body itself, but what he means is, that they were conquerors over the fleshly passions, and enjoyed the grace of the thrice-holy Spirit resident within them; and so in a similar sense does our Lord say that His disciples are "not of the world," not that they came from elsewhere, but that they were dead to the world.

Nothing on Matthew… Well, I'm not sure what part of Matthew 26 interests you, really.

Nothing on 1 John…

St Cyril of Alexandria on John 8:58:

>58. Jesus said to them, Verily verily I say to you, before Abraham was I am.

>Again does Christ advance to His wonted and favourite contrivance, for He speaks at times exceeding obscurely and overshadowing His exposition with diverse veils suffers it not to be open to all. But when He sees that the hearers understand nothing at all, then having stripped His discourse of its obscurity, He sets it before them plain and clear. And this He studies to do on the present occasion. For since He found that they understood nought (albeit a long discourse had been gone through) nor yet were able to understand that He is both Eternal as being of an Eternal Father, and that He is incomparably greater than Abraham as being God, He now says openly, adding Amen in the rank of an oath for confirmation of the things said, Before Abraham was I am. And we shall in no wise think that the Only-Begotten is boasting of being before Abraham only, for He is before all time and hath His Generation most ancient, being without beginning in the Father. But since the comparison with Abraham was before Him at present, He says that He is elder than he; just as if the number 100, for instance, were to say, I am greater than 10: it would not surely be saying this, as having the next place above ten, but because it is exceeding much superior and above ten. He therefore is not rivalling Abraham's times, nor does He affirm that He is some little precedent to his times: but since He is above all time, and o'erpasseth the number of every age, He says that He is before Abraham, uttering a truth.

>And exceeding rightly and well does He of Abraham put, Was, of Himself, I am, shewing that to him that was made of things which are not, will full surely follow the necessity of decaying, to Him That ever is will never befall the passing into not being.

>Greater therefore is He and Superior to Abraham: greater as Eternal, Superior for that He decays not as he does.

St Augustine on John 9:31-42:

>“Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other who was crucified with Him. But when they came to Jesus, and saw that He was dead already, they brake not His legs: but one of the soldiers with a spear laid open His side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.” A suggestive word was made use of by the evangelist, in not saying pierced, or wounded His side, or anything else, but “opened;” that thereby, in a sense, the gate of life might be thrown open, from whence have flowed forth the sacraments of the Church, without which there is no entrance to the life which is the true life. That blood was shed for the remission of sins; that water it is that makes up the health-giving cup, and supplies at once the laver of baptism and water for drinking. This was announced beforehand, when Noah was commanded to make a door in the side of the ark, whereby the animals might enter which were not destined to perish in the flood, and by which the Church was prefigured. Because of this, the first woman was formed from the side of the man when asleep, and was called Life, and the mother of all living. Truly it pointed to a great good, prior to the great evil of the transgression (in the guise of one thus lying asleep). This second Adam bowed His head and fell asleep on the cross, that a spouse might be formed for Him from that which flowed from the sleeper’s side. O death, whereby the dead are raised anew to life! What can be purer than such blood? What more health-giving than such a wound?

St Cyril of Alexandria on John 19:32-37:

>32-37 The soldiers therefore came, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with Him: but when they came to Jesus, and saw that He was dead already, they brake not His Legs: howbeit, one of the soldiers with a spear pierced His Side, and straightway there came out blood and water. And he that hath seen hath borne witness, and his witness is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye also may believe. For these things came to pass, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, A bone of Him shall not be broken. And again another Scripture saith, They shall look on Him Whom they pierced.

>In pursuance of the request of the Jews, men afflicted with a madness akin to their cruelty—-I mean the soldiers of Pilate—-break the legs of the two robbers, as they were still numbered among the living, intensifying the bitter pang of their last agony, and finally despatching them by the most grievous act of violence. But when they found Jesus with His Head bowed down, and saw that He had already given up the ghost, they thought it lost labour to break His Legs; but, as they still had a faint suspicion that He might not be actually dead, they with a spear pierced His Side, which sent forth Blood, mingled with Water; God presenting us thereby with a type, as it were, and foreshadowing of the mystery of the Eucharist, and Holy Baptism. For Holy Baptism is of Christ, and Christ's institution; and the power of the mystery of the Eucharist grew up for us out of His Holy Flesh.

>By his account of what took place, the wise Evangelist confirms his hearers in the belief that He was the Christ long ago foretold by Holy Writ; for the events of His life harmonised with what was written concerning Him. For not a bone of Him was broken, and He was pierced with the spear of the soldier, according to the Scripture. He says himself, that the disciple that bare record of these things was a spectator and eye-witness of what took place, and knew, in fact, that his testimony was true; and the disciple to whom he thus alludes is none other than himself. For he shrank from speaking more openly, putting away from himself the assumption of love of glory, as an unholy thing, and as a grievous infirmity.

>meaning here by the Spirit, the grace of the Spirit, and teaching that he who follows it, both thinks and does the things agreeable thereto

Lulwut. In Romans 7:15 it states the exact opposite. The flesh warreth against the spirit and is not in agreance for that exact reason as literally stated in romans 7

How did he go from this

>the flesh warreth agains the spirit

to this

>tyranny of the passions

Seems like a private interpretation he gave no explanation of.

>but what he means is, that they were conquerors over the fleshly passions

This is false because of Romans 3:10 stating there is not one righteous.

>Greater therefore is He and Superior to Abraham: greater as Eternal, Superior for that He decays not as he does.

How did he get that from Jesus saying "I am"? Doesn't the writer know that Jesus could also be referencing to how God also refered to himself as "I AM" throughout the old testament like in exodus 3:14 ?

>>538040 is literally /thread if these are the "best and most complete" explanations these (((fools))) can give. Because this is still ignoring 1 John and all the verses on how Jesus existed before the events of matthew like said in proverbs 8 and psalms 110:1.

St Clement of Alexandria on 1 Peter 2:5:

>Besides, Peter says, "You also, as living stones, are built up a spiritual house;" meaning the place of the angelic abode, guarded in heaven. "For you," he says, "who are kept by the power of God, by faith and contemplation, to receive the end of your faith, the salvation of your souls."

St Victorinus of Pettau on Revelation 20:8-10:

>"And they went up upon the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city; and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them. And the devil who seduced them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where both the beast and the false prophet shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever." This belongs to the last judgment. And after a little time the earth was made holy, as being at least that wherein lately had reposed the bodies of the virgins, when they shall enter upon an eternal kingdom with an immortal King, as they who are not only virgins in body, but, moreover, with equal inviolability have protected themselves, both in tongue and thought, from wickedness; and these, it shows, shall dwell in rejoicing for ever with the Lamb.

>>538045

> A suggestive word was made use of by the evangelist, in not saying pierced, or wounded His side, or anything else, but “opened;”

Well this guy is using a version that makes God a liar if it were true because it clearly states

>forthwith

and not open.

>This was announced beforehand, when Noah was commanded to make a door in the side of the ark, whereby the animals might enter which were not destined to perish in the flood, and by which the Church was prefigured

I have no idea how he got that from a soldier piercing Jesus's physical body's side. Care to explain?

>Because of this, the first woman was formed from the side of the man when asleep, and was called Life

This is false. She was called Eve see Genesis 3:20.

>and the power of the mystery of the Eucharist grew up for us out of His Holy Flesh.

Literally who? I have not heard of a "Eucharist" nor have I ever seen Jesus refered to as such in the Bible. Why is this person calling Jesus a "Eucharist"?

St Augustine on Psalm 110:

>This Psalm is one of those promises, surely and openly prophesying our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ; so that we are utterly unable to doubt that Christ is announced in this Psalm, since we are now Christians, and believe the Gospel. For when our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ asked of the Jews, whose Son they alleged Christ to be, and they had replied, “the Son of David;” He at once replied to their answer, “How then doth David in spirit call Him Lord, saying, The Lord said unto My Lord?” etc. “If then,” He asked, “David in the spirit call Him Lord, how is He his son?” With this verse this Psalm beginneth.

>2. “The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool.” We ought, therefore, thoroughly to consider this question proposed to the Jews by the Lord, in the very commencement of the Psalm. For if what the .Jews answered be asked of us, whether we confess or deny it; God forbid that we should deny it. If it be said to us, Is Christ the Son of David, or not? if we reply, No, we contradict the Gospel for the Gospel of St. Matthew thus beginneth, “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of David.” The Evangelist declareth, that he is writing the book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of David. The Jews, then, when questioned by Christ, whose Son they believed Christ to be, rightly answered, the Son of David. The Gospel agreeth with their answer. Not only the suspicion of the Jews, but the faith of Christians, doth declare this.…“If then David in the spirit called Him Lord, how is He his son?” The Jews were silent at this question: they found no further reply: yet they did not seek Him as the Lord, for they did not acknowledge Him to be Himself that Son of David. But let us, brethren, both believe and declare: for, “with the heart we believe unto righteousness: but with the mouth confession is made unto salvation;”4958 let us believe, I say, and let us declare both the Son of David, and the Lord of David. Let us not be ashamed of the Son of David, lest we find the Lord of David angry with us.

>3. We know that Christ sitteth at the right hand of the Father, since His resurrection from the dead, and ascent into heaven. It is already done: we saw not it, but we have believed it: we have read it in the Scripture, have heard it preached, and hold it by faith. So that by the very circumstance that Christ was David’s Son, He became His Lord also. For That which was born of the seed of David was so honoured, that It was also the Lord of David. Thou wonderest at this, as if the same did not happen in human affairs. For if it should happen, that the son of any private person be made a king, will he not be his father’s lord? What is yet more wonderful may happen, not only that the son of a private person, by being made a king, may become his father’s lord; but that the son of a layman, by being made a Bishop, may become his father’s father. So that in this very circumstance, that Christ took upon Him the flesh, that He died in the flesh, that He rose again in the same flesh, that in the same He ascended into Heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of His Father, in this same flesh so honoured, so brightened, so changed into a heavenly garb, He is both David’s Son, and David’s Lord.

>4. Christ, therefore, sitteth at the right hand of God, the Son is on the right hand of the Father, hidden from us. Let us believe. Two things are here said: that God said, “Sit Thou on My right hand;” and added, “until I make Thy enemies Thy footstool;” that is, beneath Thy feet. Thou dost not see Christ sitting at the right hand of the Father: yet thou canst see this, how His enemies are made His footstool. While the latter is fulfilled openly, believe the former to be fulfilled secretly. What enemies are made His footstool? Those to whom imagining vain things it is said, “Why do the heathen so furiously rage together: and why do the people imagine a vain thing?” etc. He therefore sitteth at the right hand of God, till His enemies be placed beneath His feet. This is going on, this is taking place: although it is accomplished by degrees, it is going on without end. For though the heathen rage, will they, taking counsel together against Christ, prevent the fulfilment of these words: “I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the utmost parts of the earth for thy possession”? Their memorial is perished with a cry;” but, “The Lord shall endure for ever:” as another Psalm, but not another Spirit, saith.

And that's all I could find available for free online in English. I'll let you give your thoughts on all of it, then I'll give my thoughts on, well, your thoughts.

>meaning the place of the angelic abode, guarded in heaven.

How did he even come to this conclusion?

"as living stones, are built up a spiritual house" is in reference to the house of isreal being based on the bloodline of Jacob/isreal in Genesis 21. Which is before Christ came for both gentiles and jews 1 corinthians 12:13 and God started giving bodies as it pleased Him in 1 corinthians 15:38. But now being based on "a spiritual house".

>And after a little time the earth was made holy

The earth was not made holy, it will be destroyed and replaced as said in Revelation 20:11 and Revelation 21:1.

>as being at least that wherein lately had reposed the bodies of the virgins

This is wrong because they already had bodies by that time, see 1 corinthians 15:44.

>as they who are not only virgins in body

Does he ever say which body?

I need to go to sleep bad, so I'll take a look at your responses tomorrow. Night!

>so brightened, so changed into a heavenly garb

This is false. Jesus will as said in revelation 5:6

>And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in them 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 unto all the earth.

>stood a Lamb as it had been slain

Jesus will not change clothing. He will just before revelation "stood a Lamb as it had been slain"

>the Son is on the right hand of the Father, hidden from us

This is false as "the mystery of Christ" is revealed by the Spirit as said in Ephesians 3:4-6.

>What enemies are made His footstool?

All of them, as to be freinds with the world is to be the enemy of God see James 4:4.

Who are these people you quoted? They seem not to know the power of God nor what He says in His word.