The New Testament tells Christians that eating blood is prohibited (Acts 15:29). This is not just a carry-over from Mosaic Law, but an article of Noahide Law (Genesis 9:4). Roman Catholics say that this prohibition ceased after that Apostolic Age, and was only discipline, but the Orthodox say it did not. The burden of proof is on the RCC to show that it did cease, and considering it is part of the NEW covenant, this assertion is rather questionable.
This might seem like a pointless law, and void due to Christ saying all animals are clean. But it's not. The reason that this is serious is because when you have blood with flesh, you are partaking of COMMUNION with the animal. Communion is only to be taken with the Body of Christ.
>>1096484
>you are partaking of COMMUNION with the animal. Communion is only to be taken with the Body of Christ.
kek. but the flesh of christ is a part of the ritual of communion, not something that goes with it. regardless it's a silly argument. only reason you can't drink blood is that it has magic juju reserved for use by god
>>1096484
>Bible if full of shit
Breaking news for sure.
>>1096498
Both the Body and Blood of Christ are required. The RCC forbid the laypeople from partaking of it for several hundred years (on the grounds that the bread was both the Body and Blood, and the wine was both the Body and Blood), but that was never the case in the Orthodox Church. The blood is communion with the life, the flesh with the living body where there is blood present.
>>1096484
If you actually want to know the Catholic answer to this, why dont you ask a Catholic message board where its far more likely someone will know the answer?
Unless of course your real intent is just to criticize the Catholic church.
>>1096484
The Whore of Babylon is drunk with the blood of the saints. You think you can get her to sober up? No, just be glad you're not partaking of her blasphemies, and get yourself saved.
Because you Orthodox are no more right with God than the Catholics are.
>>1096523
Same reason I don't just find some specialist site for every theological thread I post here.
what made you turn your trip back on?
>>1096591
Because they'd be able to tell you exactly why you're wrong?
>>1096530
What truthful rebuke did you just righteously utter of me, you worthiest of souls? I’ll have you know I failed God to the deepest of the pit in my class of worldly sinners, and I’ve been involved in numerous shameful transgressions on God's forgiveness, and I have over 300 confirmed faults. I am depraved in wicked thoughts and I’m the top coveter in the entire legions of the damned. I am nothing to thee but just another Satan. I will praise you to heaven and back with the most contrite of hearts the likes of which has been seen all too often from the sinner, mark my unworthy lips. You think you can serve away with your words of wisdom to me over the Internet? God bless, brother. As we speak I am contacting my holy communion of saints across heaven and your love is being traced right now so you better prepare for the Theosis, militant. The mercy that sustains the shining little thing you call your soul. You’re God's gift, kid. I can be all things at all times to all men, and I can bow to you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just while kissing your hand. Not only am I extensively corrupted by unnameable vileness, but I have betrayed to the entire covenant of the Orthodox Body of Christ, and I will plead her to her full benevolence to sanctify your virtuous spirit off the face of the lie, you little star. If only you could have known what holy gratitude your little “meek” correction was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have blessed your benign tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re reaping the harvest, you God fearing joy. I will weep thanks all over you and you will drown in it. You've found life, kiddo.
>>1096591
right, because you want to gather converts and attack the Catholic church, or whatever group is pissing you off that day
>>1096635
Are you suggesting polemics ought to be prohibited from this board?
>>1096673
Its worth considering.
>>1096725
Maybe you should write a polemic against polemics.
>>1096530
Just letting you know that it's faith AND works, not ''faith alone'', faith AND works. That's it.
>>1096630
How odd. I assumed you did not trivialize your faith in this way.
>>1096795
My faith is trivial, though I pray to God to make it grow.
>>1096781
Ephesians 2
For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,
not of works,
lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.
Hebrews 12
Therefore we also, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which so easily ensnares us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.
Author and Finisher.
Saved first.
Then works.
>>1096484
Does no one read Acts 15?
But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. -Acts 15:20
>>1096815
It's a shame you don't know how to be saved.
You can prove me wrong, of course, by saying exactly how it was that you were saved.
>>1096824
Yes, that's James the Judaizer getting his digs in at Paul.
Paul didn't care; he had no intention of obeying the so-called "pillars of the faith", men who added nothing to him. He just took the right hand of fellowship and left.
This is actually correct
>>1096838
You're that autist who thinks James thought that Jesus was just a prophet, aren't you?
>>1096838
Saint James the Brother of the Lord wasn't a Judaizer, he literally proclaimed the decision of the Council of Jerusalem.
>>1096874
James is Jesus' half-brother, and never believed Jesus was the messiah until after the resurrection.
Why people hold James' writings up to the greatest writings of the greatest apostle of all time is ponderous to me.
But no, I don't think James was unsaved.
What's it with you calling everyone autistic? Do you think that's a good attack against people you don't know? Do you not know it reveals your own weakness?
>>1096915
Saint James the Brother of the Lord was the first bishop of Jerusalem, and he was an early martyr according to Josephus, so he's held in high regard.
Luther, plz go.
>>1096899
Literally a Judaizer. Taught openly in the Jewish temple without a problem from the Jews whatsoever. Told people to get circumcised, baptized and follow the Law of Moses.
Literally a Judaizer.
>>1096899
Do we have a source for the council of Jerusalem that isn't the book of acts or paul's letters?
>>1096924
He was an asshole and a Judaizer. Get over your idolatry. Dump your blanket appeals to authority.
Get right with God.
>>1096926
Why would we look for another source? Because they're "biased"? Do you think there was such a thing as "objective history" back then?
>>1096928
You are holding atheist hypotheses as a higher authority than Scripture, think about that.
>>1096936
What I'm getting at is how do we know they resolved the issue? And considering Acts was written by Luke (whose gospel was written for the very purpose of making gentiles feel welcome) then yes the author's biases are a pretty big deal
>>1096989
You can say the same thing about all sorts of ancient history, "The author had a bias, so how can we be sure?" Well, if you're Christian, you can be sure because Christ said his Church would always been around, not that it would disappear and die and then be Resurrected again. If you're a secularist, then you can't be sure, but the simplest explanation is that this account is true, and unless you have good evidence otherwise, you you accept it be default, that's how all ancient history is treated, minus miraculous or fantastic things.
>>1097030
>If you're a secularist, then you can't be sure, but the simplest explanation is that this account is true, and unless you have good evidence otherwise, you you accept it be default, that's how all ancient history is treated
m8. I'm not a historian but I'm pretty sure that's not how it works
>>1096946
It's literally from the bible.
Constantine, when are you going to fix the obvious errors in your FAQs?
>>1097018
Yes, you have displayed all of your misunderstandings in a very comprehensive way.
For one, you cannot argue that Ephesians 2:8-9 supports your position.
For another, you cannot tell christians in this age from tribulation saints.
For another, you cannot tell that Jesus is the Rock, and not Peter. That Petros is not the petra.
For another, Martin Luther was a Catholic friar at all relevant times.
For another, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 goes on to say to the Christians assembled there "and so were some of you."
No, you have nothing to teach me, and much to learn.
>>1097097
Right about the same time he gives his testimony.
The 12th of Never.
>>1097163
So, 11/10 autistic? Really does explain a few things.
>>1096512
>edgelord thinks he's smart
>>1097203
I am really socially awkward but people don't seem to notice it at all irl for some reason. I'm also a clutz.
>>1097163
>http://pastebin.com/bN1ujq2x
Just to pull an example out of thin air:
http://pastebin.com/V7rpLJSZ
>Q1: Concerning the lack of portrayal of God as Triune in the Tanakh.
A1: Genesis 18 explicitly depicts YHWH as Triune, as Abraham refers to the three visitors by that name. (Other stuff omitted)
Genesis 18 does not have Abraham refer to the three visitors by God's name, because אֲדֹנָי used in Genesis 18:3 being used as a stand-in for "YHWH" is much later than the writing of the text. Furthermore, it is used numerous times throughout the bible, even to Abraham himself,
Genesis 23:5-6
>And the children of Heth answered Abraham, saying unto him:
>'Hear us, my lord: thou art a mighty prince among us; in the choice of our sepulchres bury thy dead; none of us shall withhold from thee his sepulchre, but that thou mayest bury thy dead.'
With that same אֲדֹנָי "My lord/master" writing.
>>1096484
>Noahide Law
Do not deny God.
Do not blaspheme God.
Do not murder.
Do not engage in illicit sexual relations.
Do not steal.
Do not eat of a live animal.
Establish courts/legal system to ensure obedience to the law.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Laws_of_Noah
Nothing about blood here captian
>>1097120
>you cannot argue that Ephesians 2:8-9 supports your position
This passage does not support Luther's ''faith alone'' invention. Please stop being dishonest and read the passages I linked you to here >>1097018 and if you have balls, read:
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/salvation.html
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/justification.html
>you cannot tell that Jesus is the Rock, and not Peter
See:
>>1093781
>>1093846
>>1093879
>>1094208
ctrl+f: ''0p0k'' or ''Keepa''
http://www.peshitta.org/pdf/Mattich16.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KV6PXSODgE
Once again:
http://www.protestanterrors.com/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kd66KXIbAjc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xL2Hyve-kwg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_4RFoknrwc
You have been deceived. Stop lying to yourself and accept these Biblical truths. Wake up.
>>1097228
Probably just a Social Anxiety Disorder.
>>1097254
Probably just double digit IQ.
>>1097237
>Genesis 18 explicitly depicts YHWH as Triune, as Abraham refers to the three visitors by that name.
Two angels and Jesus is not the Trinity.
>>1097240
I quoted Scripture cocerning the Noahide Law in the OP (Genesis 9:4), you're quoting Wikipedia
>>1097248
It absolutely does. And Luther did not invent anything. And I hate Martin Luther.
For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.
Quit boasting about your works. You have not enriched God one bit.
>>1097254
I don't really have social anxiety. I'm not very proactive at meeting people at all, but a lot of people seem to be interested in getting to know me, so it works out.
>>1097266
Since when does the Noahide law matter, again? It's in the middle of Noah's covenant, the Flood/rainbow. It has nothing to do with the New Testament at all.
>>1097257
Explains the desire for structure and authority though. Poor dupe.
>>1097258
Why do you think it is "two angels and Jesus" as opposed to the Trinity?
>>1097280
Because the NT reaffirms it. Acts 15:29
>>1096484
>Matthew 16:19
>And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
>>1097271
If you truly love God and take the Holy Bible seriously you will read:
http://www.protestanterrors.com/
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/salvation.html
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/justification.html
You should also watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_4RFoknrwc
It's only 15mins long.
PS: I do not boast about works, I am simply aware of the importance of righteousness.
>>1097301
This is about being able to absolve and excommunicate, it doesn't mean you can change dogma.
>>1097266
>3 Any living creature that moves about shall be yours to eat; I give them all to you as I did the green plants. 4 Only meat with its lifeblood still in it you shall not eat.
>>1097321
What you eat is disciplinary, not dogma
>>1097284
Wow.
If you think three men walking together can in any way represent the Trinity, you are a polytheist.
Genesis 18
Then the men rose from there and looked toward Sodom, and Abraham went with them to send them on the way. And the Lord said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am doing,
Genesis 19
Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom.
>>1097288
Nope. Just a debate about how many of Moses' Laws were going to be shoved down Paul's follower's throats.
The answer was zero.
Zero laws.
James was a Judaizer, and that's not a good thing.
>>1097307
Dude, the Whore of Babylon has nothing to teach me about God.
>>1097307
>I am simply aware of the importance of righteousness.
Care to explain?
>>1097321
What utter bullshit.
Do people think you're a Christian here? Really?
Peter opened heaven to the Jews on Pentecost.
Peter opened heaven to the Gentiles at Cornelius' house.
The keys have been used. Heaven is open for business.
There is no power given to a man to include or exclude someone from the Kingdom of God.
That is an abomination.
>>1097339
Have any patristic source on that?
>>1097332
So you're agreeing?
>>1097350
God is three persons, three existences of one entity.
I already made an argument as to why the Hebrew shows this, Hebrew prose is almost entirely in parataxis, and you cannot come to any other conclusion unless you read it through a lens other than parataxis.
>>1097363
Who destroyed the Whore of Babylon? Babylon did, which was pagan Rome. Babylon is a code name for Rome, which symbolized sexual and immoral excess. Revelation 17:16 says that the ten horns (symbolizing the rulers of pagan Rome) will destroy the whore by fire, which is exactly what the Romans did to Jerusalem in 70 AD. And then Revelation 17:14 says that the Lamb will conquer them both. This happened in the 4th Century, when Constantine became the first Christian emperor of Rome, who stopped all of the religious persecutions of Christians with the Edict of Milan in 313 AD. Constantine built the Vatican directly on top of the tomb of St. Peter, on Vatican Hill, outside the city of Rome.
>>1097366
>Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous. Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.
1 John 3:7-10
See >>1097018
How the fuck can anyone believe in transubstantiation? I mean actual tests proved that the sacramental wine does NOT physically change into blood. I don't understand how can Catholics laugh at Creationist retards while believing in shit like that.
>>1097388
Read John 6.
>>1097388
Holy Shroud of Turin's blood test results? AB-
Holy Sudarium of Oviedo's blood test results? AB-
Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano's blood test results? AB-
AB- = 1% of the population
Pic related.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_type_distribution_by_country
>>1097388
Also, after you read John 6, keep in mind that in Christianity, our actual bodies are Resurrected. This is done by making them joint bodies of Christ, that is the whole point. To become a living part of Christ's Body, which is accomplished through communion.
I'm Orthodox, so I don't believe in the validity of Catholic sacraments. It's not actually Christ's Body and Blood for them.
If you read through the Gospels in the order they were written it seems to me that Jesus's personality changes a lot.
Starting with Mark, Jesus doesn't have a lot to say about his identity. Hell his own disciples don't quite clock the fact that he's the Messiah. He performs great wonders and tells everyone to keep it under wraps. He runs around calling everyone to repentance and says the end is pretty damn nigh. No mention of being the Way the Truth and the Life; if you want to go to heaven you need to get on your knees and repent. The story ends with the women finding the tomb empty - there is no encounter with the risen Jesus.
In Matthew and Luke the end is still pretty nigh but less so than in Mark. Luke after all repeatedly implies that the Gentiles need to be brought into the fold - there's work to be done before God can bring time and space screeching to a halt. Jesus's messianic status is made clear to his disciples but there is little trace of a high Christology.
John, which was written after the first few generations of Christians had passed away, makes very little mention of the End Times. He makes no effort to keep his identity under wraps and performs healings etc. for the very purpose of convincing people, in complete contrast to Mark. It's the only Gospel that spells Jesus's divinity out explicitly.
Scholars generally accept that Jesus's baptism by John, a bona fide apocalyptist, actually took place. We know the earliest Christians thought the Second Coming was imminent. Paul scrambles around Asia Minor setting up as many churches as he can and telling them to fasten their seatbelts because shit is going to get real any moment. It's not until towards the end of the century that the episcopate begins to take shape, people realize the End of Time isn't round the corner, and the view of Jesus as God rather than a mere Messiah or Son of God takes hold.
>>1097395
That's impossible to prove or disprove since we can't just pull Jesus back to Earth and make him replicate the trick. And a mere man wouldn't be able to do that.
However we CAN and DID prove that sacramental wine doesn't change into literal blood.
>>1097401
>I'm a schismatic heretic
FTFY*
>>1097402
I've answered most of this extensively here: http://pastebin.com/9XxNnSU6
>>1097379
>parataxis.
>Hebrew Prose
>In a Greek literary style invented literally centuries after the composition of the texts.
No, you, like other Greeks and Greek inspired people, slapped on a bunch of non-related literary styles to something you barely understood. The fact that you have "short, simple sentences" does nothing to change that; nor does it change the meaning of "He ran over to them" before he starts talking, nor does it change that the euphamism of the tetragrammaton as "Adonai" post-dates the text, nor does it change that other people, including Abraham, get referred to as "Adonai", so your claim that it is only used to address God is demonstrably false.
>>1097424
>Genesis 18
>Greek literary style
Explain
>>1097424
Oh, you mean the term "parataxis" is Greek. Well, yes it is, but parataxical construction was hardly invented by the Greeks.
>>1097379
I just literally showed you in Genesis 18 and 19 how the three men were the Lord Jesus and two angels.
>>1097384
Nobody, yet.
Rome is Babylon.
Roman Catholicism is Mystery Babylon, the Whore.
The pope is the False Prophet of Mystery Babylon.
Revelation has not played out yet, amillenialist scum.
>>1097384
So to you, righteousness is trying to stop sinning. Is that your position? Have you achieved a sinless nature? Are you a righteous person?
>>1097465
Yes, but "parataxical construction" doesn't do anything to help the case that the statement addressed in Genesis 18:3 is directed at God and not the three angels/men. Especially since the hallmark of parataxis is to join two seemingly independent statements by their proximity. What's the most recent action before Abraham gives his speech? He runs over to the three dudes and bows to them. Ergo, the statement is likely addressed to them, not God.
>>1097388
Their faith is in their church to save them, and their church tells them that they have magic rites and rituals that turns the crackers and juice into the real presence.
The real presence is satanic.
>>1097390
So justify trying to drink Jesus' blood.
"Binding" is finding guilty; "loosing" is finding innocent.
>>1097401
You're something, all right.
Just not a Christian.
Which is a shame, because you seem like you would want to be a christian.
>>1097506
Wrong.
>>1097515
>Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins.
Ecclesiastes 7:20
>>1097402
You can't understand the gospels until you understand who wrote them, to whom, and why.
Matthew: Levi, the apostle and tax collector, wrote his gospel in Hebrew to the Hebrews to portray Jesus as the Lion, the King of the Jews. Hence the lineage; hence the references to the OT; hence the coming Kingdom of God on earth.
Mark, John Mark, wrote Peter's account to the Romans. Jesus was portrayed as the Suffering Servant, the Ox. Hence no lineage, and a lot of suffering.
Luke, the doctor and Paul's friend, wrote to the Greeks to put all of these things in good order; i.e. chronologically. He's the only one to claim to do this; the others famously do not. Luke portrayed Jesus as the Son of Man to the Greeks.
John the beloved apostle wrote his gospel to the world to show Jesus as the Son of God, the Eagle.
These four images, these four faces of Jesus, the Lion, Ox, Son of Man and Eagle also appear on the four creatures before the throne of God.
>>1097523
>So justify trying to drink Jesus' blood.
John 6:53-56
Drinking blood is a seal to communion, that is precisely why we are supposed to do it with Christ, and precisely why we are not supposed to do it with animals.
>>1096826
Fag
>>1097535
So you still have not given me a definition of righteousness, nor have you claimed to be righteous. In fact, you have claimed the opposite; that nobody is righteous.
And yet Jesus said that unless your personal righteousness exceeds that of the very devout and religious pharisees and scribes, you will in no way enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.
How then will you be saved? By your works? Your works make you righteous? More righteous than the works of the Law done by the most devout pharisees who ever existed?
>>1097559
Bait?
>>1097550
No, it's disgusting, against God's law, against man's law, and it never happens at the eucharist. You never have consumed any of Jesus' blood.
Keep reading in John 6.
Realize that there is spiritual food, and spiritual drink, and that these are more important than physical food and physical drink.
Stop listening to the Whore of Babylon. She lies, like her father satan lies.
>>1097559
>you have claimed the opposite; that nobody is righteous
Nice reading comprehension btw.
>>1097553
It's a pretty simple test. Someone says they're a christian, you ask them how, they have no clue.
So, not a christian.
>>1097563
Bible verses.
>shitposting heretic proddy filth
>>1097578
You do not understand that verse.
I have never claimed that nobody is righteous.
>>1097577
this, true cancer
>>1097578
>>1097590
Matthew Henry's Commentary:
>If we say we have not sinned, we deceive ourselves. Every true believer is ready to say, God be merciful to me a sinner. Forget not at the same time, that personal righteousness, walking in newness of life, is the only real evidence of an interest by faith in the righteousness of the Redeemer.
Do you understand now?
>>1097735
On the contrary, I admit every time I'm wrong.
You two have not dealt with the issue honestly.
Jesus said that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and pharisees, who devoted their lives to following the Law, you will in no way enter into the kingdom of heaven.
>>1097738
Have you ever read the Holy Bible? This is a very serious question that I'm asking you. Please answer honestly.
>>1096484
>it's a constantine thread
To the trash.
>>1097747
>muh hurry babble
Eat a dick faggot.
>>1097747
Yes. Many times. Heard it. Many times.
I am not asking you a question to which I do not hold the answer.
>>1097750
Everyone said he's this Orthodox Christian, and here he is spouting Catholic nonsense.
When asked to give a testimony, he ignores the request.
When asked simple questions, he runs around them.
Verdict: Lost.
>>1097744
>I admit every time I'm wrong
So you are also a liar, great.
>You two
>>1097735 is me.
>Jesus said that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and pharisees, who devoted their lives to following the Law, you will in no way enter into the kingdom of heaven
From the Haydock Commentary:
Ver. 20. Of the Scribes and of the Pharisees.
The Scribes were the doctors of the law of Moses; the Pharisees were a precise set of men, making profession of a more exact observance of the law: and upon that account greatly esteemed among the people. (Challoner) --- See how necessary it is, not only to believe, but to keep all the commandments, even the very least. (Bristow) --- Our Saviour makes this solemn declaration at the opening of his mission, to shew to what a height of perfection he calls us. (St. Aquinas) --- "Your justice." It is our justice when given us by God. (St. Augustine, in Ps. xxx. lib. de. spir. & lit. chap. ix.) So that Christians are truly just, and have in themselves inherent justice, by observing God's commandments, without which justice of works, no man can be saved. (St. Augustine, de fide & oper. chap. xvi.) Whereby we see salvation, justice and justification, do not come by faith only, or imputation of Christ's justice. (Bristow)
>>1097757
I'm not american, kiddo.
>>1097780
>Catholic nonsense
proddy pls
>>1097799
>From the Haydock Commentary:
Never heard of it. It this was lifted from there, throw it in the trash immediately.
The Jews already had the Law, and were keeping it better than you.
And none of them were ever found righteous under the Law. The Law cannot make a man righteous.
Ring a bell?
>>1097807
>piodj;lejr kl oiue wj
Best Catholic argument ever!
>>1097817
>Throw George Leo Haydock, Richard Challoner, Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint Augustine into the trash!!!!1
This is why I can't take proddies seriously, no matter how hard I try.
>>1097820
>triggered
>>1097855
Nothing of value will be lost.
>>1097855
Don't worry about your .gif; the Holy Spirit has nothing to do with you whatsoever.
>>1097926
t. pseudo-Christian
>>1097932
Holy Spirit dwells in me, and the Spirit in me is not the Spirit in you.
You're not of the Kingdom.
>>1097941
You have been deceived.
You are lost and delusional.
Poor soul.
You will, like many proddies, convert to Catholicism on your deathbed anyways.
>>1097981
Can't. Not possible. Becoming a new creation in Christ Jesus is permanent and irreversible.
You'll become a muslim first, which is just as useless as being a catholic.
>>1098010
Whatever helps you sleep at night pal.
>>1098034
Assurance of eternal salvation, yes. I sleep like a baby.
How would Jesus feel if I sacrificed him a chicken? (Can't afford anything else)
>>1098698
You're suppose to give him a bloodless sacrifice of bread and wine. And praise.
>>1098706
Okay, but if I do that, and add a chicken on top of it, how will He feel?
>>1097388
Because they believe that while it does literally transform, at the same time it still appears at every level to be bread and wine
>>1096484
Why do Orthodox and Catholics completly disrespect their God?
You claim to follow him but you take 50% of his writings, the Old Testament, and declare it is "Mosiac". This is supposed to be divinly inspired words given by the being you think is the creator of the universe and you piss it away, come up with every reason to dismiss it. You have an excuse for every blashemy, every broken rule of God's law (which you insult by calling 'Mosiac'), using all sorts of Pagan ideas such as the 'holy spirit' which is totally not Sophia which gave Paul secret, higher, wisdom which is totally not Gnosis.
How about calling the New Testament "Paulian" and ignoring that too? Maybe say that you are allowed to do it because "Oden's raven's" told you. I'm sure those mental gymnastics would be easy to justify.
>>1098776
>Pagan ideas such as the 'holy spirit'
This triune God (or Trinity) began to allude to this aspect of His nature right in Genesis 1:26–27. There we read that “God said, ‘Let us make man in our image’ . . . God created man in His image.” Here God is a plural noun, said is in the third-person singular verb form, and we see both the plural pronoun our and the singular His referring to the same thing (God’s image). This is not horribly confused grammar. Rather, we are being taught, in a limited way, that God is a plurality in unity. We can’t say from this verse that He is a trinity, but God progressively reveals more about Himself in later Scriptures to bring us to that conclusion.
In Isaiah 48:12–16 we find the speaker in the passage describing himself as the Creator and yet saying that “the Lord God and His Spirit have sent Me.” This is further hinting at the doctrine of the trinity, which becomes very clear in the New Testament. There are many other Old Testament Scriptures that hint at the same idea.
In Matthew 28:18–20 Jesus command His disciples to baptize His followers in the name (singular) of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. John’s Gospel tells us that “the Word” is God who became man in Jesus Christ (John 1:1–3, 14). Jesus was fully man and fully God. Many other verses combine together to teach that God is triune.
As a start on a thorough discussion on this topic, the chart in pic related is an accumulation of many of the passages that show the deity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
>>1098706
>bleedless Sacrifice
That's funny. Old Testament God demands the blood of animals, in fact it's the only thing in the sacrifice he cares about. Blood is the life-force and that belongs to him. All blood, all life, returns to him to complete the life and death cycle.
Also giving fucking breed and wine to a sacrifice is doing the same bullshit Cane did. There's no blood in it.
>>1098795
Listen buddy. Moses personally met God, he's the only one that ever did it. He'd know a little more about the big man than you and your Pagan religion would. There's no "holy spirit" or Jesus there.
The spirit mentioned in the old testament isn't a living thing, it's mark. And there sure as hell isn't some mystical carpenter in there.
Not a single Jewish priest ever believed this stuff and they are the one that literally wrote the damn book! This fucking arrogance by the Paulian theology to declare themself greater than the prophets in knowledge of God. You're forcing your Pagan deities in there. I bet you can find Hermes Trismgestias in there too if you look hard enough (and funny enough Christians DID think he was in there for centuries)
>>1098813
>let me ignore facts
Whatever helps you sleep at night pal.
>There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; the very words I have spoken will condemn them at the last day. For I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me to say all that I have spoken.
John 12:48-49
>>1098776
The OT is not ignored, it's just the Law and its legal implementation which is considered defunct.
>>1098796
The bread and wine is transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ, can't get any better than that.
>>1098850
It's 100% meme. Show me where YHWH is a Canaanite war god in a pantheon of other gods. Show me a Canaanite temple to YHWH
>>1098858
Wew.
>>1097375
>excommunicate
>exclude someone from the Kingdom of God
That's not what excommunication does.
>That is an abomination.
Agreed.
>>1098795
Your argument based on word usage is completely nullified solely due to the fact the Bible was translated from Aramaic -> Greek -> Latin -> English
>>1098858
>It's 100% meme.
Lord God of Hosts (armies)
Do you also deny that El is the chief diety of the canaanite religon?
>>1099291
t. Biblically illiterate
>>1099292
YAHWEH-SABAOTH: "The Lord of Hosts" (Isaiah 1:24; Psalm 46:7) – Hosts means “hordes,” both of angels and of men. He is Lord of the host of heaven and of the inhabitants of the earth, of Jews and Gentiles, of rich and poor, master and slave. The name is expressive of the majesty, power, and authority of God and shows that He is able to accomplish what He determines to do.
Nice try.
>>1099311
Considering neither of us speak the original Afro-Semitic language the Bible was originally written in, and thus can't grasp the true meaning, we're both Biblically illiterate faam.
>>1099330
Biblically illiterate = haven't read/don't understand the Bible
>>1098796
Except when he demands offerings of wine and flour., or tells his prophets that heartfelt prayer is better than sacrifice..... You have read the old testament, haven't you?
>>1099332
I've read it from cover to cover.
However, I understand that an argument based on the word choices/grammar within it are null and void because English is the fourth language in which it has been translated, whereas you do not.
So you don't understand the Bible by your own arbitrary definition.
>>1099365
weak bait
>>1099314
>we've reinterpreted this term to fit our current theology, so your wrong.
>>1099372
>I hate facts
It shows.
>>1099371
I'm asserting that translating language, especially between two different language families distorts the meaning
If you think that's bait then I don't know what to tell you, buddy.
>>1099373
I am well familiar with the current interpretation, That does not negate the fact that host makes more sense as armies than peoples, and it matches the war deity theory, which despite being called a meme has a long of support among scholars.
>>1099390
>I don't know what to tell you
Yeah, you should try not shitposting then because your arguments are bait-tier.
There are plenty of reliable translations of the Holy Bible, stop playing dumb.
>>1099393
We both know that you are clueless.
Please stop shitposting, you're embarrassing yourself, kiddo.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavenly_host
>>1099395
>reliable translations
According to what criteria? Did Jesus come down from Heaven and give it his seal of approval, or did the Aramaic, Greek and Latin translators from 2000 years ago?
>>1099292
"El" is a title, not a proper name.
>>1099399
I have a pretty solid Catholic education, Ill make my position clear: I find the suggestion that it originally pertained to anything other than human armies unlikely, and it is instead a sign of how Yahweh was reinvented as a supreme monotheistic deity by later generations.
Now do you have any actual rebuttal or are you going to continue to insult me, like a "good" Christian?
>>1099410
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_%28deity%29
ʾĒl (or 'Il, written aleph-lamed, e.g. Ugaritic:
>>1099413
>reinvented
This is the atheist meme which you keep mindlessly spouting.
>insult me
?
>>1099420
You called me kiddo :(
>>1099426
That's not an insult, friendo.
>>1099372
Psalm 148:2
That's not a reinterpretation. The word used for "hosts" (צָבָא) is simply the feminine case of Hebrew word for "world" (תֵּבֵל)..
2 Samuel 22:16
>>1099436
>Is it all an atheist conspiracy?
No, it simply comes from dishonest atheists.
>>1099436
Btw, ''you are playing dumb'' and ''kiddo'' are not insults, friendo.
>>1099417
>(as a proper name) to any one of multiple major Ancient Near East deities
Read this. Very slowly. Then look up what "proper name" is.
Your argument is as ridiculous as saying Catholics worship Zeus because Deus is Latin form of the Greek word Zeus (which it is).
>>1099436
I think it is a decent hypothesis which I might consider if I were a secularist, but there is absolutely no hard proof for it.
>>1099444
Tevel is season, not world; and has nothing to do with armies. And I have no idea why you're quoting the Samuel verse you are.
>>1099452
>>1099460
I think dismissing an entire academic theory as the work of atheists being "dishonest" is pretty narrow minded
It begs credulity that The Canaanite God El, and the El in the bible bare no relation. It seems to me the only people who have a problem with this theory are those who have a vested religious interest in it being wrong.
>>1099472
No, Tebel (or Tevel in contemporary Hebrew) is world. Moed is the word for season.
>>1099476
>as the work of atheists being "dishonest" is pretty narrow minded
Have you read the information that has been provided to you? If so, how can you be aware of the facts and still pretend that those who claim otherwise aren't dishonestly twisting them?
I'm posting pic related just in case, because you seem to be the type who falls easily for this type of atheist dishonesty.
>>1099476
I didn't say they were dishonest, just that I don't accept it because there is not enough evidence.
They're both called 'el' because the words are cognate. It's not a proper name, it's a name used to refer to several deities. In Exodus 20:3, it says you shall have no other elohim (plural of el) before me, so it's abundantly clear it is a title, like Lord or King. It can be used as a proper name in the same sense as Lord can.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MGVBuQHcMk
>>1099497
El is equivalent to "God" in English. It can be used for "God' as in YHWH, or a god. Similarly, in Greek, the Theos (god) is often used as a singular expression to refer to a deity, and in the New Testament "Theos" refers to YHWH.
>>1099490
No one supported Zeitgeist which is easily falsified. The fact that there many scholars who disagree with you suggests your interpretation on the facts might be biased by your worldview
>>1099497
Its hard to believe there will ever be hard evidence from that part of the world from that far back, we cant even prove for sure that Solomon was a real person.
Its now considered well established that early Jews were not monotheists, and most likely emerged from the Canaanites. Its therefore probable that Yaweh in his earliest monothiestic form drew heavly from the Cannaanite pantheon.
That is how every other religion on earth evolved, you would have to believe that Jews were not effected by the same trends in religion that every other culture was subject to.
>>1099508
>Its now considered well established that early Jews were not monotheists
It's also considered well established that Jesus Christ was just a man, that's not really enough for me.
>That is how every other religion on earth evolved, you would have to believe that Jews were not effected by the same trends in religion that every other culture was subject to.
I actually believe their religion was the truth, so huge difference.
You might try watching Patterns of Evidence. It shills a lot for Israel, and has excess dramatic stuff in it (you can start 25 minutes in), but it will allow you see why the Christian position is tenable: http://putlocker.is/watch-patterns-of-evidence-the-exodus-online-free-putlocker.html
>>1099483
Season like seasoning a soup, not spring or summer. Olam and Eretz/Aretz are the words for "World". Go look up the flood narrative, or the creation of the world.
>>1099508
>your interpretation on the facts might be biased by your worldview
The Word became flesh, that is a fact.
As for the ''interpretation of the facts'', as I said, when it is presented dishonestly it may support the meme which you're spouting but it is easily refuted, as it has been shown to you.
I'm not Constantine but I'm also curious about this >>1098858
What is your response?
>>1099530
So 2 Samuel 22:16 is saying the foundation of the seasoning was laid bare? And Job 34:13 is talking about seasoning?
>>1099545
My response is hardly anyting survives from that period and place. We dont even have physical evidence Solomon was a real person. Most of what we have to go on is what we can dig up, and the records of more advanced civilizations in the same region.
>>1099527
I dont have time to watch it now, but from what a quick google search shows, while there are legitimate scholars behind it, the theories they are working off of are not well accepted by the mainstream
>>1099555
You don't have to listen to the theories, just look at the evidence. The fundamental premise is that the time assumed of Exodus has been wrong, and that it took place much earlier, and that if you plug in an early date, a lot of archaeological evidence shows up, which is examined in the documentary. The reason most of that evidence is rejected as evidence archaeologists today is matter of dating.
>>1099555
You can presume a king built the first temple, and that he'd make sure it was HIS name which was associated with it.
>>1099572
Dating is pretty damn important.
not saying I wont watch it but if they say something that is against the mainstream I am very likely to be skeptical
>>1099585
I'm not saying there was not a Solomon, I am just saying we do not have a single inscription or foreign mention of him to prove it.
I dont think there has been any archeological evidence of the 1st temple either, but that is explainable by the ban on digging on the mount
>>1098776
>This is supposed to be divinly inspired words given by the being you think is the creator of the universe and you piss it away
Most of the laws in Leviticus and Numbers is how to kill goats, lambs, sheep, oxen, heifers for offerings to the tabernacle/temple, give grains and bread offerings to the tabernacle/temple, give wine libation to the tabernacle/temple, and when you can give stuff to the the tabernacle/temple i.e. be clean and pure. The 2nd temple was destroyed (as Jesus said it would) and there is NO place left to give the offerings or care about ritualistic cleanness or purity.
>>1096484
> The reason that this is serious is because when you have blood with flesh, you are partaking of COMMUNION with the animal. Communion is only to be taken with the Body of Christ.
Sauce on this claim or get out
>>1096484
Orthoag please explain why it's okay to endorse Muslims in the holy land?
>>1096484
There goes blood pudding and coagulated pigs blood in congee
