/christianity/ - Christian Theology & Philosophy

>>7480

>first pic

Those repetitions aren't vain, but nice strawman. Even catholics understand that repetitive words become vain when spoken without fervor, when you're just saying the hail Mary or the Lord's prayer as fast as possible to get it done and not focusing on the actual faith those words convey.

>second pic

So we should go back to the old testament now? We live under the new covenant. Jesus Himself rebuked the pharisees and saduccees for parading about in their robes to appear holier.

>third pic

Jesus did not give them the power to forgive sins. Notice how He didn't say "they must come to you to profess their sins, or else the confession means nothing". A third party cannot forgive the sins of another, when the sin isn't committed against the third party.

>>7482

>Even catholics understand that repetitive words become vain when spoken without fervor, when you're just saying the hail Mary or the Lord's prayer as fast as possible to get it done and not focusing on the actual faith those words convey.

…Okay? When someone brings up vain repetitions, it's done to deny the validity of simple prayers like the Jesus Prayer. When someone says that, it must be pointed out that the highest of all the angels honor God with one simple prayer, over and over.

>We live under the new covenant. Jesus Himself rebuked the pharisees and saduccees for parading about in their robes to appear holier.

Yeah, because Jesus and His Apostles walked around in suits and ties. Gee willikers! If you pay attention to robes of Apostolic Christianity, they have theological importance and continuity with the robes of the Old Covenant era. Unfortunately with liberal Catholics, there are people that walk around in garbs with Snoopy on them, but if you look at the traditional (fiddleback, etc) garments, they all have a theological basis and are a continuation of the OT vestments.

>Notice how He didn't say "they must come to you to profess their sins, or else the confession means nothing".

It's implied? Why would He specifically give that power to His apostles if not? And we know that He had the Apostles pass this and the power to transubstantiate down, because He will be with us through all times (and all people must eat His flesh to have life in them), therefore His Church and His priests will be with us through all times.

>>7484

>…Okay? When someone brings up vain repetitions, it's done to deny the validity of simple prayers like the Jesus Prayer. When someone says that, it must be pointed out that the highest of all the angels honor God with one simple prayer, over and over.

You need to touch up on your reading comprehension, I clearly stated that it is the "vain" part of vain repetitions that is against scripture. It is not a sin to repeat things if it is done fervently and faithfully. Argue against my argument, not against the arguments of others that I'm clearly not making.

>Yeah, because Jesus and His Apostles walked around in suits and ties. Gee willikers! If you pay attention to robes of Apostolic Christianity, they have theological importance and continuity with the robes of the Old Covenant era. Unfortunately with liberal Catholics, there are people that walk around in garbs with Snoopy on them, but if you look at the traditional (fiddleback, etc) garments, they all have a theological basis and are a continuation of the OT vestments.

Don't be silly, of course Jesus and the apostles didn't wear suits. They wore the common clothes of the period, they were humble in them. They did not wear special robes that set themselves apart from the others. And how is continuing the old testament a good thing? Jesus died for us to not live by the old covenant.

>>7490

>What you say is that a proper prayer can become vain if it is rushed/not fervent. This argument is strange, because you're conceding the validity of prayers like the Hail Mary but saying that they're invalid because they can lack a fervent spirit.

I used the hail Mary as an example of a prayer, but never said that I think it is valid. I used it to make a point about certain rehearsed and recited prayers used by catholics that are often said in haste and thus made vain.

>He died for us to partake in His glory. It was willful, God the Father did not damn God the Son to suffer–He willingly suffered, because only He (the spotless lamb) could atone. This is exactly where you get blasphemous interpretations of Scripture, in particular when it says Jesus "became" sin. That's impossible, if you take it the way Protestants generally do.

He still got us out of the old covenant with his death though. If we were still under the old covenant we'd still be sacrificing animals, but His one time sacrifice was enough. When He died the veil of the temple was torn, a veil that under the old covenant was only opened for priests. But Jesus is the one and only high priest of the new covenant, and the veil being torn shows how we can approach Him directly now. We don't need a priest with colorful robes to sacrifice animals to atone for our sins or reach God.

The members of each denomination are there because they don't see the doctrine of that denomination as contrary to scripture ofc

Protip: using 2-3 word dismissals of an opposing position only emboldens the opponent, they will assume your conception of the practice is a strawman.

Protip 2: it's Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism

>>7490

>It's a way of honoring God, through repetition.

What is? Vain repetitions in prayer? No it's not. In fact Jesus Christ commanded against it in Matthew 6:7-8.

But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.

>Is Abraham our father? Stephen thinks so. Same with Paul.

In Romans 4 the apostle Paul calls those who are the "seed" of promise as being sure of their salvation through the fact Abraham is the "father of us all" but in this he only includes the faithful saved believers, not all men. Stephen in Acts 7 references Abraham as being the father of those present there since it was a council or synagogue where he was present. But neither case is giving him the unqualified title of father, these are both delimited clearly. Also, Abraham was not on earth at the time of either letter anyway. Matthew 23:9 says to call no man "your" father upon earth.

Which is something I actually intend to uphold and understand, not compromise to the flesh.

>And do we forbid using the word teacher to refer to a pastor?

But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. (Matthew 23:8)

And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. (Matthew 23:9)

Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. (Matthew 23:10)

>What do you think they wore?

What do I think who wore? People who wore long robes to make themselves seem spiritual? The whole Levite continuationism idea you've devised is not Biblical, due to what the epistle to the Hebrews says and also the entire New Testament.

>And why don't you read the rest of John 6?

I do. And that's why I take reading God's word seriously.

>you always refuse to answer whenever someone goes after your risible KJV-onlyism or false ideas of the history of Christianity.

Whatever hallucination of what you think I believe doesn't substitute for fact. Neither does a false version of scripture substitute for the true, in any language. The same false version will have the same errors in any language.

>>7491

>We don't need a priest with colorful robes to sacrifice animals to atone for our sins or reach God.

Also the Levites couldn't actually accomplish remission of sins because they had to continually sacrifice, and by means of their death new priests had to replace them. And this is exactly why such things aren't necessary and if someone claims they are then they are actually denying the fulfillment of the one sacrifice that Jesus made as our high priest. If you substitute some other (Catholic) priesthood for Jesus then you're only merely denying his effectiveness. By saying that there needs to be more priestly rituals, you've denied his sacrifice. The Biblical basis:

Hebrews 7:23-27

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

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

Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;

Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.