/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Pharisaism means religious hypocrisy. None of these groups are inherently hypocritical.

Catholics are judaizers though.

>>774613

>Catholics are judaizers though

How so?

>>774607

It depends on the individual, you can become so fixated on the externals and rules that you lose sight of their true meaning and purpose. The law is meant to be followed with love, it's meant to heal and guide.

>>774616

Judaizers required living according to Jewish customs, even in the new covenant. This is opposed to the gospel message that grace freely comes to those who believe.

Catholics instituted the sacramental system and notably replaced circumcision, the primary issue for the judaizers, with baby sprinkling that they call baptism. Like the judaizers, catholics reject liberty in Christ Jesus by their rituals.

>>774624

Christ never gave us a license to sin, he also warns of sins that will bar us from the kingdom of heaven. The sacraments are there to heal us, it's ultimately by Gods grace that we can be free from sin, but it's also up to us to choose his grace instead of sin. Sin is always a choice, and there are some sins that cut us off from Christ completely.

>>774628

The sacraments are an extrabiblical invention. There are ordinances of the Lord's supper and baptism.

Grace comes only through faith.

>>774613

They are literally the opposite of Judaizers. Why do you think Jews and seventh-day Adventists hate them so much?

>>774634

Jesus was pretty clear about the Eucharist, that's unless you eat of his flesh and blood you have no life in you. The church fathers and accounts of the early church confirm the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist. This is where many will abandon Christ.

>>774642

Eating the flesh is belief

the flesh profiteth nothing

>>774646

Jesus was clear that the Eucharist was his flesh and blood, and this is why many abandoned him because it was too much for them. Don't rely on your own understandings which only go back a few hundred years, take into account the historical and scriptural evidence.

>>774657

You are committing the exact same error as those who grumbled and abandoned him by looking for a literal meal. We're looking at John 6. I'm presuming that you see this as a forerunner to your eucharist, but the last supper hasn't happened yet.

In the passage, Jesus uses metaphorical language to teach that belief gives eternal life. This is a parallel of the "living water" episode in John 4, which I'm sure you also teach to be metaphorical.

The Jews are offended that he is claiming to be divine (John 6:41), then offended that they perceive him to be teaching cannibalism (6:60). In fact, he clarifies the metaphor in the first place ("Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. "I am the bread of life. Jn. 6:47-48 NAS), but even after he hears them grumbling he gives a clarification

<61 "Does this cause you to stumble?

<62 "What then if you should behold the Son of Man ascending where He was before?

<63 "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. (Jn. 6:61-63 NAS)

He causes them to leave because they can't take his teaching, whether it be continuing in a purely physical mindset or perceived blasphemy that Jesus is claiming divinity by his connection to the manna from heaven. He "doubles down" on the metaphor (true food … true drink) to achieve this weeding out.

The correct conclusion from Jesus's words is that belief in Him brings eternal life. This is in perfect consistency with the rest of scripture:

<all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins." (Acts 10:43 NAS)

<whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life (Jn. 3:16 NAS)

<through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and through Him everyone who believes is freed from all things (Acts 13:38-39 NAS)

<For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast. (Eph. 2:8-9 NAS)

My challenge for you is, what's the point of "the flesh profits nothing" in verse 63? Does your doctrine not just give direct contradiction to that verse?

Maybe you interpret "flesh" to mean something besides eating the flesh of Jesus, just that once in this context.

My position is not novel and I base it entirely on scriptural exegesis.

>>774674

Wait a sec, so are you saying that taking the Eucharist is unbliblical? "Do this in remembrance of Me"?

>>774674

If only the apostles and disciples who brought the Holy Mass to the nations, teaching the same exact beliefs on real presence all over the mediterranean world that Christ taught them, had received the light of Protestant reformers 15 centuries later. They would know better.

>>774683

The catholic articulation of the doctrine of the eucharist is unbiblical because it claims to be a sacrament, a ritual you must follow in order to receive grace.

The ordinance of observing the Lord's Supper is biblical.

>>774692

Simply untrue. You only need to observe that it wasn't codified until 1215 at the fourth lateran council to disprove your faulty assertion.

Even if it were, that's not a hermeneutical argument.

>>774683

He's saying that the eucharist isn't necessary for salvation, not that it shouldn't be done at all. "Do this in remembrance of me" not "do this so you may be saved by me".

>>774698

>You only need to observe that it wasn't codified until 1215 at the fourth lateran council to disprove your faulty assertion.

You know the Armenians, Ethiopians, Copts etc. were already separated from the Catholic church and already believed in the real presence, right? You also know this dogma was affirmed at this time specially to fight the Cathar heresy which denied the already accepted doctrine of real presence?

>Even if it were, that's not a hermeneutical argument.

And it doesn't need to be, because interpretation of scripture alone, without the light of the tradition through which the scripture itself was compiled, is not sufficient.

>>774699

>>774692

Well, Christ should not have to tack "do this to be saved" onto the end of everything he said. He said to His followers "Do this in remembrance of Me" which pretty heavily implies that he wants them to continue doing it after he is no longer with them. If you are a follower of Christ, then I would think you would follow this command.

>>774712

>scripture is not sufficient

Scripture equips for every good work

2 Tim 3:17

>>774723

Do you think your salvation is contingent on perfect obedience to every command in scripture?

>>774725

>Do you think your salvation is contingent on perfect obedience to every command in scripture?

"Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." Matt 5:48

>>774730

Yes, that is an instruction. Is your salvation contingent on perfect obedience?

>>774732

I sure as heck hope not because I'm about as imperfect as a human can get.

>>774736

You're right. That's the point of grace. Even though we don't deserve it, it's freely offered.

As we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8.

This post >>774723 demonstrates a faulty understanding that all instructions carry the weight of damnation if you fail.

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;

9 not as a result of works, that no one should boast. (Eph. 2:8-9 NAS)

shoo shoo liberal

While I'm very much in favor of traditionalism, I do think there are some issues on which typical traditionalists have weird priorities.

For example, I don't understand why the extraordinary mass can't be held in vernacular. Especially when we let Eastern Catholics hold their traditional liturgy in vernacular. Things like that where they seem to let aesthetics and tradition get in the way of practicality and reasonability, effectively making things more difficult and exclusionary for seemingly no reason other than tradition for tradition's sake.

>>774725

That's not even what the part you cited says. It says that scripture is useful, not that it sufficient in itself.

You should stop treating the bible as an encyclopedia with definitions everywhere that can be freely and fully examined apart frim the rest. It was not written this way.

>>774760

>That's not even what the part you cited says

<All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

<that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. (2 Tim. 3:16-17 NAS)

All scripture is:

1) inspired by God

2) profitable for:

a) reproof

b) correction

c) training in righteousness

Why? So that the man of God may be:

1) adequate

a) adequate meaning equipped for every good work

>It says that scripture is useful, not that it (is) sufficient in itself.

every good work

You are made equipped for every good work by scripture. There is not a good work that relies upon tradition apart from scripture. This is an exhaustive declaration.

What does "every" mean to you?

You should stop using the Bible as a book of good advice when it suits you, and start viewing it as the verbally inspired word of God

>>774674

So when Jesus uses the Greek words which describe animalistic eating - when Jesus says, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye MUNCH ON the flesh of the Son of man, and GUZZLE DOWN his blood, ye have no life in you." - you're saying He uses this explicit and unambiguous language to… make a metaphor?

Of course, when you take the Eucharist without faith in Christ, it profits you nothing. Nobody who believes in the Real Presence will ever tell you that you can be saved without faith in Christ just because you eat a little disk of His flesh. The belief that Christ is really present in the Eucharist absolutely does not contradict the belief that you cannot be saved without faith.

>>774780

That is exactly how metaphors work.

"Jews are swine"

"Jews are dirty, disgusting hogs who wallow in the mud and eat slop"

These are both metaphors, despite one being more graphic than the other. A Jew is not really a pig.

Is this just some talking point you heard in a youtube video?

>>774780

>So when Jesus uses the Greek words which describe animalistic eating - when Jesus says, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye MUNCH ON the flesh of the Son of man, and GUZZLE DOWN his blood

This is what papists actually believe the bible says

>>774785

In your example both metaphors are very clear and unambiguous in their meaning. One can look at a Jew and see very clearly that he is not a literal hooved animal. It's obviously not very clear in the case of Christ saying you have to MUNCH ON His body in order to be saved as a metaphor for believing in Him, considering that the crowd took him to be literal and left, and considering that millions of Christians throughout the ages have also taken it to be literal. Why, of all things, would Christ use cannibalism as a metaphor for faith? Cannibalism is generally a pretty disgusting practice, and He surely knew that using such a metaphor would close hundreds of hearts against Him. Did He use this imagery for the express purpose of driving the crowd away? If so, why did He repeat it at the Last Supper?

>>774794

>Did He use this imagery for the express purpose of driving the crowd away

yes

Which verbs in particular are you pointing to?

>>774796

>yes

Then firstly, why? And secondly, why repeat the cannibalism metaphor at the Last Supper, in the company of His close friends? And again to the disciples He met on the road to Emmaus? Clearly it holds some value beyond its utility as normie-repellent.

>Which verbs in particular are you pointing to?

"Trogo." It's usually translated roughly as "to gnaw, to chew." As opposed to "phago," which is more usual for things that should be translated as "to eat".

>>774774

Yes, and works alone do not make us worthy of the Kingdom of God, as protestants like to recall.

That's why the Word became Flesh, so we could literally be nourished by consuming the Eucharist.

Your interpretation of Christ's word was born with unprecedented mass production of written work and I understand that protestants want to treat the Bible as an instruction manual, but that's simply not how we used to think before the Renaissance. The Eucharist is real AND a symbol. The dichotomy between symbolism (or what you call a metaphor) and reality is completely foreign to the times of the Old and New Testaments.

>>774800

>why?

I gave my answer >>774674

https://biblehub.com/greek/5176.htm

trogo is used in John 13, but not the other 3 records of the last supper. I'm not sure what the issue is, you want an answer as to why use this word instead of a different one?

>>774804

mere assertions

I'll have to presume you mean symbolism (typology) on just this topic is foreign, since typology is all over the whole Bible.

>>774808

Trogo is used at the sermon where the crowd was driven away, not the Last Supper. Sorry, I didn't mean to mislead you there. But while the language isn't quite as explicit at the Last Supper, the imagery is still there, even when just talking to His friends. Why?

>>774813

Why use the same metaphor?

What's the alternative?

>>774808

>mere assertions

It seems that you think you know better than the Apostles, their disciples and all the early churches that they have founded who believed in the Real Presence, so it follows that I stop playing on your grounds and take a wider perspective to show why your hyper-literalistic modern perspective might be wrong.

>>774841

You think you're coming of as some sage drawing wisdom from the ages to dispense it, but really you're just being an obtuse ideologue.

>>774922

My "ideology" is apostolic, yours was made up by taking a book entirely out of its context. I'm not some sage, neither were the apostles; but they received the Holy Spirit.

There, I can also drop segmented Bible verses:

2 Corinthians 3:6

>He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.