/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

can't post. site failing. fix your shit codemonkey

>>533836

>The Catholic church forbids their "priests" to marry.

ZING!

>>533893

>Christ

You… uh, want to back that claim up, fam?

>>533832

>vegetarianism

I think it was more about those reintroducing Jewish dietary laws. In fact, I think the "doctrines of devils" largely, though not exclusively, refers to the Judaizers that were polluting Christ's early church.

The KJV specifically say "meat", and a few others have followed suit – Darby, Douay-Rheims, ASV, Websters, ERV – and while I can speculate that the specificity of "meat" comes from the Vulgate, apparently the Darby wasn't written from the Vulgate, so I'm not sure why. But, the same word is translated by the KJV in, say, Matthew 14:15 as "victuals", which means it doesn't ONLY refer to meat, but, other than this verse the KJV consistently translates this word "meat". However, Strongs and Lockman's NAS reckons the Greek is actually "food (of any kind)", and since we might reasonably assume (((they))) weren't trying to stop people eating at all – but who knows with the proto-gnostics … [roll-eyes.jpg] – then Paul is implying the clarifying word "certain", as in "commanding to abstain from certain foods".

In other words, this is really about reintroducing Jewish law – specifically dietary laws – to Christians, something we knew was going on from other passages, and not vegetarianism as such. Not that I'm advocating for vegetarianism here. I'm just saying it's not forbidden as a personal choice. 7th Day-ers, that said, are nuts for making it law. Nevertheless, I'll expect some KJV-onlyist to chime-in now and insist that "the holiest of Holy versions (pbui) says 'meat', so it's a prohibition against vegetarianism", before following with a diatribe citing Cain's implied vegetarianism an abuse of scripture, but anyway rejection by God, and, frankly, I could be fugging bothered arguing with them.

Hug a rainbow.

>>533911

>forbade

< here we go again

< /christian/ – the ultimate land of scripture abuse to fit our own preconceptions

Do you KNOW what the word "forbid" even means?

>For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it. (Mt 19:12)

Christ FORBADE nothing in this verse

>But the time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them, and on that day they will fast. (Mk 2:20)

Christ FORBADE nothing in this verse

He was making a prediction, nothing more.

>I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord. (1Cor7:35)

Paul FORBADE nothing in these verses

>for we are members of his body. (Eph 5:30)

Paul FORBADE nothing in these verses

>And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife. (Rev 21:9)

Anon… I…

What do you think that has to do with anything?

I think you would have been better to go to some Bible site and ask for a random selection of verses. Even a broken clock is right twice a day!

>>533979

I'll give you this … you lot are bloody tiresome. It's like you deliberately try not to understand. Or perhaps it is that you're trying desperately to make excuses for anon who made a misstatement, who should have retracted it, but you're only too happy to triple-down along with him. I guess I'll admire your unity.

It went like this

>The Catholic church forbids their "priests" to marry.

<So did Paul and Christ.

>Paul and Christ forbade certain foods and marriage?

And anon doubles-down by affirming and providing those verses. He should have backed away.

>>Mt 19:12

>can

It aaaaaaall hinges on one little option. An option plus a "should" isn't a forbidding, it's an encouragement. If you CAN go to the store, you SHOULD go to the store. That's not me ordering to go to the store. No one in any English dialect would take that as a command. Just back away.

>And who are to live for the sake of kingdom of heaven if not those of Priesthood, which is voluntary?

Christ does not institute a formal priesthood with this verse or, really, ever so He's talking in general terms, to ALL peoples who will believe in Him.

>>Mark 2:19-20

>WILL, not may, fast.

>>He was making a prediction, nothing more.

><Christ do not know future of his very mystical body

>Really niga?

Are you normally this dense, or are you trying hard for me? Or do you just like to assume that everyone who disagrees with you on this board is non-Christian?

I CLEARLY cannot say "He prophesied" since prophesy means receiving something from God … whom He is … so, how else are we going to describe Him telling us what will happen? I took a shortcut. A prediction CAN mean a speculative guess, OR it can also be a statement of fact about the future:

>say or estimate that (a specified thing) will happen in the future…

But, fine, you don't like the word, let me fix that for you:

>He was describing the future … not commanding it.

He wasn't telling his disciples "Now, when I'm gone, this is what you should do…" He was telling the Pharisees, "Don't worry about that, they'll fast when I'm gone, believe me. But right now, why would they when I'm with them in the flesh?"

>>1 Corinthians 7:32-35

It's an encouragement, not a command. He's saying being married is blessed, but being unmarried is even more blessed. He even says, in v40, "according to my counsel". He's advising, not commanding.

>>Ephesians 5:25-33

>>Rev 21:9

>Priest acts in person of Christ to his Church. And Christ was Virgin. Or at least this I think is what anon mean.

In other words, we're going to infer (1) what anon means, but we're not sure, but we'll defend him anyway, and (2) we're going to INFER that because Christ was unmarried, that's a COMMAND that we should also be.

Look, I frankly do not care if you guys want to have a specific Levitical priesthood, and that, as much as possible, you want to have them unmarried – have at it, hug a rainbow. But, I really do object to folks insisting, "Nah, Christ and Paul COMMANDED us to do this exact thing" when it is abundantly clear that neither Christ nor Paul did any such thing. Does Paul encourage people – the general Christian populace – to remain unmarried? Absolutely, for the times of tribulation were at hand, and we can serve God more effectively this way. So, why is it that only priests and monks do this and not the wider Christian population to whom Paul is talking? Did Christ predict or state that people would fast when He was gone? Sure did, but he neither commanded it, NOR did He state – which is what this entire thread is about – that "this food, and that food, and this other food, nah mang, they're forbidden and you shouldn't eat them." That's what the Judaizers did. That was antithetical to all Christ's teaching. Also fasting is NOT the same as FORBIDDING people eating certain foods. And, finally, did Christ encourage people who CAN be eunuchs for the kingdom, to be so? Yes, He did. He encouraged it, He did not command it.

Basically, anon was defending his church's practises. Fine. Just don't overextend and say that Christ or Paul commanded those practises when your scriptural basis is weak. Just do like this guy >>534004 and do the usual, "the church said it, I believe it, that's the end of it".

>>534291

>I'll give you this … you lot are bloody tiresome. It's like you deliberately try not to understand. Or perhaps it is that you're trying desperately to make excuses for anon who made a misstatement, who should have retracted it, but you're only too happy to triple-down along with him. I guess I'll admire your unity.

I'll give you this … you lot are bloody tiresome. It's like you deliberately try not to understand. Or perhaps it is that you're trying desperately to condem anon who present you with truth, but you're only too happy to triple-down along with other doctines of devil. I guess I'll admire your density

>And anon doubles-down by affirming and providing those verses. He should have backed away.

This your point of view. Reality is that

>Claim without evidence: The Catholic church forbids their priests to marry.

<response to claim: If Church "forbids them it's in the same manner that Paul and Christ".

And I know what "he" >>533893 meant for I am "him"

>Response "Paul and Christ forbidden to marry in the manner as Church does?"

<Answer: Yes.

>It aaaaaaall hinges on one little option. An option plus a "should" isn't a forbidding, it's an encouragement. If you CAN go to the store, you SHOULD go to the store. That's not me ordering to go to the store. No one in any English dialect would take that as a command. Just back away.

It aaaaaaall hinges on one little option. An REAL, BETTER option THAT IS GIFT FROM GOD ("All men take not this word [it is not expedient to marry], but they to whom it is given'") plus a "should" isn't a forbidding, it's an encouragement. If you CAN go to the store, you SHOULD go to the store. That's not me ordering to go to the store. No one in any English dialect would take that as a command.

And as prooven above, Priests who are not commanded to be priests but do it out of love to God are willing to make themselves voluntary "enuchs for the sake of Kingdom of Heaven"

Just back away.

>Are you normally this dense, or are you trying hard for me? Or do you just like to assume that everyone who disagrees with you on this board is non-Christian?

I CLEARLY cannot say "He prophesied" since prophesy means receiving something from God … whom He is … so, how else are we going to describe Him telling us what will happen? I took a shortcut. A prediction CAN mean a speculative guess, OR it can also be a statement of fact about the future:

You are right, he is God. And God does not make "a speculative guess". And even if he did he would not do it in the very context of UPHOLDING certain practice.

>He wasn't telling his disciples "Now, when I'm gone, this is what you should do…" He was telling the Pharisees, "Don't worry about that, they'll fast when I'm gone, believe me. But right now, why would they when I'm with them in the flesh?"

So in other words he told that Church is ought to fast. What is your problem again then?

>It's an encouragement, not a command. He's saying being married is blessed, but being unmarried is even more blessed. He even says, in v40, "according to my counsel". He's advising, not commanding.

So why should Priest, who are ought to took every word of God-Breathed Scripture, which this portion is, do not live in celibacy?

>In other words, we're going to infer (1) what anon means, but we're not sure, but we'll defend him anyway, and (2) we're going to INFER that because Christ was unmarried, that's a COMMAND that we should also be.

You are not be priest. No one commands you to do that. God may move your will towards this but it's voluntary.

But if you ARE priest it is more fitting and more profiting to be in celibacy.

>Look, I frankly do not care if you guys want to have a specific Levitical priesthood, and that, as much as possible, you want to have them unmarried – have at it, hug a rainbow

Our Priesthood is of Order of Melchizedek for priest participate in Christ's priesthood. Levitical priesthood was shadow of thing to come. And Levitical priesthood was priesthood of marriage, inferior to priests of new law. Read Book of Chronicles, you have genaologies upon genaologies of High Priests

>But, I really do object to folks insisting, "Nah, Christ and Paul COMMANDED us to do this exact thing" when it is abundantly clear that neither Christ nor Paul did any such thing.

I think I found root of your problem. You say that we do things that we don't. And you project voluntary commands over whole of population. Classical Jude 11.

>Does Paul encourage people – the general Christian populace – to remain unmarried? Absolutely, for the times of tribulation were at hand, and we can serve God more effectively this way.

<Man, this whole moral teachings of Paul are not timeless moral standards, ghet with the times, it's 2017

ayy

>So, why is it that only priests and monks do this and not the wider Christian population to whom Paul is talking?

You do know that we have vows of chastity for laity and even consecrated virgins? Sub Portion of them are monks and priests.

>Did Christ predict or state that people would fast when He was gone? Sure did, but he neither commanded it, NOR did He state – which is what this entire thread is about – that "this food, and that food, and this other food, nah mang, they're forbidden and you shouldn't eat them."

What Christ did is said that we WILL fast. Christ even says that fast can be used as exorcism Matthew 17:20.

And we know that Christians did fast and took words of Christ as comand. Read Didache for exemple, chapter 8

>That's what the Judaizers did. That was antithetical to all Christ's teaching.

Antithetical is forbidding priest to live in celibacy.

> Also fasting is NOT the same as FORBIDDING people eating certain foods.

Abstinence from meat is valid form of fasting, see Daniel 1.

> And, finally, did Christ encourage people who CAN be eunuchs for the kingdom, to be so? Yes, He did. He encouraged it, He did not command it.

STRONGS NT 5562: χωρέω

to be ready to receive, keep in mind, and practise

>Basically, anon was defending his church's practises. Fine. Just don't overextend and say that Christ or Paul commanded those practises when your scriptural basis is weak. Just do like this guy >>534004 and do the usual, "the church said it, I believe it, that's the end of it".

Church is body of Christ anyway, and we see apostolic tradition of fasting and celibacy in and outside of Scripture.

>>534295

eh?

You also think I am arguing against catholic practises, do you? Try reading what I actually write instead of leaping to your own conclusions of what you think I mean to say. Look, I even write it out again below for you.

>>534520

>There's nothing to believe in this particular case - it's just a man-made law, of the same kind as speed limits or minimum wages.

THANK YOU!

Problem is your fellow CathAnons are trying to convince me that Christ and Paul both mandated priestly celibacy and abstaining from certain foods and I'm trying to get them to see that, as you rightly say, they didn't, the church just mandates this. Apparently I am pushing shit uphill because this guy's just not buying it. >>534419

>>534419

I have no idea what your particular type of reading comprehension difficulties are, but they're strong. I mean, I write this:

<He wasn't telling his disciples "Now, when I'm gone, this is what you should do…" He was telling the Pharisees, "Don't worry about that, they'll fast when I'm gone, believe me. But right now, why would they when I'm with them in the flesh?"

And SOMEHOW you interpret that as me saying

>So in other words he told that Church is ought to fast. What is your problem again then?

No, He didn't tell the church it ought to fast, as He wasn't addressing the church at all. He was simply saying this is what will happen. How do you not get that from what I wrote?

Furthermore, you'll note I even said:

<Also fasting is NOT the same as FORBIDDING people eating certain foods.

which, again, stems from the original anons' insistence that "Nah, Jesus and Paul said!"

Likewise, I say:

<It's an encouragement, not a command. He's saying being married is blessed, but being unmarried is even more blessed. He even says, in v40, "according to my counsel". He's advising, not commanding.

and you reply:

>So why should Priest, who are ought to took every word of God-Breathed Scripture, which this portion is, do not live in celibacy?

Now, finally, it would seem we're on the same page: you agree that it is an encouragement – not a command – they are taking seriously. GOOD. I agree. I think people who devote their lives to God profit from being unmarried, as Paul does. And YET, in the very next sentence, you manage to write:

>You are not be priest. No one commands you to do that. God may move your will towards this but it's voluntary.

ffs. I hope you mean "the church" when you say "commands".

Paul didn't command it. Personally, I think that making it mandatory then is a little constricting, since a lot of people who would like to serve God are now cut-out. But, hey, as I said, as I have BEEN saying since the beginning, that's not my argument nor my point in this thread, and nor do I particularly care to argue against it: you do whatever you feel like doing. Nothing to do with me.

Yet somehow you seem to think that is exactly what I am arguing against.

>I think I found root of your problem. You say that we do things that we don't. And you project voluntary commands over whole of population. Classical Jude 11.

Oh?

A-a-are you saying you understand me now? I mean, you misunderstand ME, but you agree with what I have been arguing all along? Yet, somehow you see fit to declare me to have "taken the way of Cain".

Fucking nice.

BUT, you say that because somehow you STILL THINK I am arguing this:

>Antithetical is forbidding priest to live in celibacy.

Which I am not. Truly, I give in. You guys go argue with your strawman. I've had enough.

Basically, this whole argument with you three? Four? Two? Is it all you? stems around reading difficulties. The entire contention of this thread is "forbidding people from eating certain foods" and "forbidding people from marrying", and you three or nine are arguing that Paul and Christ ordered just that, which is patently not true.

THAT

is the entirety of my argument. If you understood that, why would you bother to reply in such self-justifying detail?

Also, petty thing to note, but you absolutely suck at greentexting replies.