/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>576571

Are you praying to it?

Are you leaving offerings or burning incense in front of it?

If not, it's not an idol.

smash it, maşallah

>>576573

This

I was always wondering this, I live in a very Baptist part of the US and I see many nativities, how can they interpret "thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image" and then make nativities like it's nothing?

>>576571

I think they're nice.

>>576571

3DPD

It's not idolatry unless you are praying to it (or "using it as a tool to focus prayer", same difference) or giving it worship by bowing before it, kissing it, etc.

>>576609

What part of "any" you do not understund :^)

>>576613

>bible says X is bad

>protestants: X is bad, with some caveats for certain situations

>catholics: since exceptions exist X is never bad

>>576571

It's not idolatry unless its being used as an idol, but images of Jesus are never ok (not ok to depict a member of the Godhead)

>>576666

You lies are showing Satan

>bible says X is bad, Y is ok

>catholics: Y is not X, though may be cnfuseing

>protestants: Y is bad, Y is X

>>576691

>bible says call no man father

>protestants: call no man father doesn't count your actual biological father

>catholics: since calling your dad father is okay, calling tons of clergy and spiritual authorities father must be okay

>bible: don't make images of heavenly things for the purposes of worship

>protestants: don't make images of heavenly things for the purposes of worship; when God specifically instructed for the ark of the covenant that he dwelled in to have cherubim on it that was okay

catholics: since the ark of the covenant was okay, all use of images in worship are fine

bible: don't have long hair

protestants: don't have long hair unless you're a nazirite

catholics: since it's okay for nazirites to have long hair, all long hair is fine

>>576699

>>catholics: since calling your dad father is okay, calling tons of clergy and spiritual authorities father must be okay

" I write not these things to confound you; but I admonish you as my dearest children. For if you have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet not many fathers. For in Christ Jesus, by the gospel, I have begotten you."

" For this cause have I sent to you Timothy, who is my dearest son and faithful in the Lord;"

So are you calling St. Paul a heretic?

>>576710

On the contrary its misunderstood.

Its a warning against taking the idea of spiritual fatherhood to extremes- that is, even if you have earthly spiritual fathers you still only have one ultimate Father

its a warning about idolizing spiritual fathers to such a degree that they become more important to you than God, your actual Father.

>>576712

>even if you have earthly spiritual fathers you still only have one ultimate Father

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

So all those verses which say there's only one true God really mean there are lots of minor gods serving under the main God?

>>576716

Of course not.

But other than that explanation how could you explain Paul referring to himself as the spiritual father of others?

>>576716

Did Saint Paul sin when he wrote 1 Corinthians 4:15?

>>576719

>Of course not.

Well, applying the exact same hermeneutic to this verse rules out earthly spiritual fathers entirely, because it is a direct parallel.

>But other than that explanation how could you explain Paul referring to himself as the spiritual father of others?

He is using a metaphor in both cases. First, he is describing the fatherly care he has for them, because he personally discipled them. For this reason they have "not many fathers", since they were not converted by many men.

Regarding Timothy, he is so called he was Paul's personal student, his protege.

>>576700

>1 Corinthians 4

Paul's saying that though the Corinthians can learn from other Christians, such as Apollos (1 Cor 3:4), he has had the privilege of being the one who has begotten them, through the gospel, in Christ Jesus.

>18 Now some are puffed up, as though I would not come to you.

>19 But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will, and will know, not the speech of them which are puffed up, but the power.

>20 For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power.

>21 What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in the spirit of meekness?

He's appealing to them, letting them know how much he loves them, before letting into them in chapter 5 regarding the sins reported among them.

>>576726

Of course, and just as how Paul was conveying a particular meaning by calling himself their (metaphorical) father so is the clergy.

The priest and clergy are meant to have a fatherly love for those they teach.

>>576726

>Paul's saying that though the Corinthians can learn from other Christians, such as Apollos (1 Cor 3:4), he has had the privilege of being the one who has begotten them, through the gospel, in Christ Jesus.

>>576724

>he is describing the fatherly care he has for them, because he personally discipled them

This is exactly what the doctrine of spiritual fatherhood means

>>576731

>>576732

Wouldn't make sense to call your priest father even in this specific context unless he was the one who converted you to Christianity. Do you really look at that passage and glean from it that Paul was trying to get the Corinthians to call him father?

>>576732

>This is exactly what the doctrine of spiritual fatherhood means

Really? It just means that the priest personally brought you to the faith?

Well, it's good to know that concepts like alter Christus, in persona Christi, and the indelible mark of priesthood don't actually exist.

>>576581

baptist idea of idolatry = anything you think is cool, anything catholic

biblical idea of idolatry = anything you literally carve and worship as an avatar of a false god, like something out of the elder scrolls

>>576741

There is no need for conversion. That is something you made up.

Like the whole protestantism thing, really, which is based on making up retarded heresies like iconoclasy to destroy yhe Church

In the name of Cromwell we should smash it.

>>576571

>I especially want to hear my fellow protestant's opinion on this. Is it always idolatry?

hahahahhahahahahahahaha

>>576903

P O P I S H

O

P

I

S

H

>>576761

>Really? It just means that the priest personally brought you to the faith?

And that he nourished you, take care of you and is your superior.

>Well, it's good to know that concepts like alter Christus don't actually exist.

Also Scriptural, also Pauline:

Galatians 4:14 You despised not, nor rejected: but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.

>in persona Christi,

Also Scriptural, also Pauline:

2 Corinthians 2:10 And to whom you have pardoned any thing, I also. For, what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned any thing, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ.

> and the indelible mark of priesthood don't actually exist.

Also Scriptural, also Pauline:

For it is declared: "You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek." Heb 7:17

It's a manifestation of the cultural environment and it's uniqueness but I personally think they often look goofy. I'd rather tradition be manifested in other ways.

>>576849

>There is no need for conversion. That is something you made up.

Nani? What do you call coming from darkness to light? Paul led those Christians to Christ.

Acts 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.

>>576990

>Galatians 4:14

Again, he's appealing to the love that he shares with the Galatians to ask them to listen and obey.

>15 Where is then the blessedness ye spake of? for I bear you record, that, if it had been possible, ye would have plucked out your own eyes, and have given them to me.

>16 Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?

Paul is hardly calling himself an angel or Christ in this passage, he's saying last time he came the Galatians accepted him AS they would have accepted even the very Christ, despite his sickness.

>2 Corinthians 2:10 I'll admit that I don't have a clear answer for that one, apart from what I argued above. I'll study and pray and get back to you.

>Hebrews 7:17

Read the whole chapter. It's Christ being referred to, not Father o'Toole.

>21 (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:)

>22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.

>23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:

>24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.

Singular High Priest, Our Lord Jesus Christ.

>>577024

>Paul is hardly calling himself an angel or Christ in this passage, he's saying last time he came the Galatians accepted him AS they would have accepted even the very Christ, despite his sickness.

Alter Christus means that priest are servants of Church, united with the Servant Christ. And thus they have honor or being united with him in special way, honor that could be given to Christ himself. Notice, why they gave him such honor? Because he "preached the gospel to" them.

>Singular High Priest, Our Lord Jesus Christ.

And that's the post. Christ is archpriest, arkhierous. But notice, there cannot be arkhi- ‘chief’ if there is one. There cannot be hierous if hierarchy does not flow from it as rays from sun. Notice, that Father does not say: "You are pirest forever in Melchisedek", or "as Melchisedek was", but in order of him, for as Aaron was high priest but not only one, but he has order of him, so does Christ. Notice that we are priestly nation, and yet, we do not partake in rebleion of Core, who denied that ministral priesthood exist. For we are united with him, for we are his body and he is our head. Notice, that Paul in letter to Romans says, that by "grace which" was "given" to him "from God" he is "the minister of Christ Jesus among the Gentiles". Ministry here is hierourgounta, and hierourgeō means to offer sacrifce. For "we have one alter, from which those of circumssion do not eat" for we "partake in table of Lord". And there is no alter without sacrifce and no sacrifce without priests who in order of Melchisedek are in it forever.

>>576571

A lovely little tradition to remember the circumstances of our Lord's birth.

>>576990

>And that he nourished you, take care of you and is your superior.

Well that's not how Paul uses it, and that's how Jesus says not to use it

>Also Scriptural

Pull the other one

>Galatians 4:14

This is referring to his evangelism, he is very clearly saying that when he preached to the Galatians they listened to his message as if a heavenly being was preaching to them.

>2 Corinthians 2:10

The word is presence, not person. The underlying word literally means face, and the meanings of both presence and person flow from that. The context is an exhortation to forgive those who had sinned against them. Saying that he forgave in the face of Christ indicates not that he was wearing Christ's face, but that it was done before Christ's face.

>Heb 7:17

How dare you so blaspheme. This verse is about Jesus.

>>577058

>And thus they have honor or being united with him in special way, honor that could be given to Christ himself

I thought the honor that should be given to Christ Himself is latria

>But notice, there cannot be arkhi- ‘chief’ if there is one

Every believer is a priest, able to be reconciled to the Father by the intercession of the one and only High Priest.

>Notice, that Father does not say: "You are pirest forever in Melchisedek", or "as Melchisedek was", but in order of him, for as Aaron was high priest but not only one, but he has order of him, so does Christ

Christ is the only member of the priesthood of Melchizedek.

>Notice that we are priestly nation, and yet, we do not partake in rebleion of Core, who denied that ministral priesthood exist

Korah's rebellion was an attempt to usurp the God-ordained order of the Church. Since your priesthood is nowhere in scripture, and is indeed a rejection of the biblical order, I think we can safely say it is you and priests who are partaking of the rebellion of Korah.

>Ministry here is hierourgounta, and hierourgeō means to offer sacrifce

Yes, Paul is ministering Christ Jesus to the Gentiles. He is offering it to them to partake thereof, not to the Father to be made.

>And there is no alter without sacrifce

The table is likened to an altar because upon it we offer a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God. But the sacrifice of the mass, which is offered for the sins of the quick and dead, is a repugnant sacrilege which blasphemes the once for all death of Christ and is offensive to scripture.

>>577088

>Well that's not how Paul uses it,

<he nourished you

1 Corinthians 3:2 I gave you milk to drink, not meat; for you were not able as yet. But neither indeed are you now able; for you are yet carnal.

< take care of you

1 Timothy 3:5 But if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?

<and is your superior.

2 Corinthians 2:9 For to this end also did I write, that I may know the experiment of you, whether you be obedient in all things.

>and that's how Jesus says not to use it

Christ says that against not title itself but usurping it and being hypocrite as evident from context.

>Pull the other one

Another passage? Or what?

>This is referring to his evangelism, he is very clearly saying that when he preached to the Galatians they listened to his message as if a heavenly being was preaching to them.

Because of his hierourgounta, ministry.

>The word is presence, not person. The underlying word literally means face, and the meanings of both presence and person flow from that. The context is an exhortation to forgive those who had sinned against them. Saying that he forgave in the face of Christ indicates not that he was wearing Christ's face, but that it was done before Christ's face.

Word here is prosopon. Though it could mean presence, person is acceptable definition for Christians are monoprosponic - we believe that Christ is one person, not two persons, human and divine, but one divine person, with two natures.

>How dare you so blaspheme. This verse is about Jesus.

How dare you blaspheme Christ and say that he is not chief of ORDER of Melchizedek?

>I thought the honor that should be given to Christ Himself is latria

Latria is honor given to Christ as God. But Christ have other honors - him being man, him being king, him being prophet, him being priest. All those honors we unite to him in latria via virture of hypostatic union but for exmple honor that was given to him on Palm Sunday was the same honor that was given to David by his subjects.

>Every believer is a priest, able to be reconciled to the Father by the intercession of the one and only High Priest.

And all of Israel was priestly nation and yet they had their order with their archpriest.

>Christ is the only member of the priesthood of Melchizedek.

Then it is not an order at all for the very word used requires to be multitude of person in it.

>Korah's rebellion was an attempt to usurp the God-ordained order of the Church. Since your priesthood is nowhere in scripture, and is indeed a rejection of the biblical order, I think we can safely say it is you and priests who are partaking of the rebellion of Korah.

Numbers 16:

And behold Core stood up against Moses and Aaron, said: Let it be enough for you, that all the multitude consisteth of holy ones, and the Lord is among them: Why lift you up yourselves above the people of the Lord?

This is rebelion of Core. He said that since all of Israel is people of God, why there is ministral priesthood? And you, who say that there is no hierourgounta of apostles are of this very rebellion.

>Yes, Paul is ministering Christ Jesus to the Gentiles. He is offering it to them to partake thereof, not to the Father to be made.

In whole of new law there is but one sacrifice offered for rest would be null. This sacrifice is sacrifice of Christ on Calvary. Same sacrifice that Christ commanded to his priest to offer in memorial of him. For one is sacrifice for all. And in this sacrifice we partake in table of Lord.

>The table is likened to an altar because upon it we offer a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God.

Context is priestly, sacrificial, not to mention that you can actually eat from this altar and this altar is united with Calvary as seen in context.

>But the sacrifice of the mass, which is offered for the sins of the quick and dead, is a repugnant sacrilege which blasphemes the once for all death of Christ and is offensive to scripture.

There is much wrong with this statement. You claim that:

>mass is offeed for sins

The Mass reconciles man with God, as we learn from the words of Christ uttered at the Last Supper, “This is my blood, which is being shed for many unto the forgiveness of sins” (Matthew 26:28). We are not redeemed all over again by the Mass, for we were redeemed once on the cross; but the Mass applies to our souls the fruits of redemption gained for us on the cross. As a perfect propitiatory sacrifice, the Mass satisfies the justice of God.

>mass is offered for the sins of the dead

There is no forgiveness of sin after death. This is catholic dogma. Masses for dead are offered so that already saved and yet not full-purified were comforted and more graced.

>mass is repugnant sacrilege

On contrary, Paul teaches that disrespect towards sacrifice of Eucharist is equal to being guilty of actually killing Christ. And thus it follows that calling Eucharist " repugnant sacrilege " you call by those names Christ's death.

>mass blasphemes the once for all death of Christ

On contrary, all those who deny that there are sacrifice represented for us denies that Christ sacrifice is "for all", and thus blasphemes the once for all death of Christ

>mass is offensive to scripture.

On contrary, Malachi the prophet says about mass Malachi 1:11 which is interpreted as refrence to mass since ever.

>>577011

What are you going on about