Any thoughts? Which do you believe is better for the common man, integrated into government, or anything else really, just opinions for or against one or the other.
It's cosy knowing I am part of the Church that Jesus entrusted to his Apostles and not some barbaric heretic.
It's cosy (sic) knowing I am part of the invisible church that Peter belongs to, and not to the Church of Peter.
>>910910
I'm Eastern, but i'm gonna go with the guys that at least have apostolic succesion, are mentioned in the ancient texts, and have Holy Tradition.
>>910945
>Holy Tradition
Enjoy hell!
>mfw Episcopalian
>>910975
<"Enjoy Hell!"
What's wrong with Holy Tradition?
>Not believing that the Eucharist is the literal body and blood of Christ
Why don't you just perform the Holy Communion with a box of animal crackers and a Capri Sun?
Compare Catholic nations in Europe to Protestant nations in Europe.
Shit, compare any Catholic nation to any Protestant nation.
Protestant nations overwhelmingly have higher standards of living, less crime, higher GDP per capita, and are superior on a bunch of other scales of personal and social well-being.
And don't even get started on Orthodoxy. That amoral garbage ruins whole nations.
>>910996
Belgium and the richest part of Germany is Catholic.
>>910996
Those Protestant cultures typically had very collectivised, anti-indivualistic cultures to begin with. Not to mention a standard of cultural repression in Germany and Northern Europe.
You'll find a Catholic country like Austria who also has these cultural traits would share this "high standard" that you claim only Protestant societies have.
>>910986
well jesus should have no trouble turning that into a cannibalistic act too so what's the problem?
>>910986
Literal body and blood means physical, atomic flesh. This can very easily be tested and has been. The bread and wine you put into your mouth at not point transforms into flesh and blood. To continue thinking so despite so many blatant confirmations should be listed as a mental disorder.
>>911007
>Today is the early 1930s
Whoops, found your mistake
>>911003
Spain, Portugal, and Italy are Catholic. Greece is Orthodox. We're talking whole countries, not favored substates that thrive by differentiation. Before you say anything else, remember that France's body politic is ultra-secular.
>>911012
>Those Protestant cultures typically had very collectivised, anti-indivualistic cultures to begin with
What the FUCK am I reading?
>>911033
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante
Thanks for playing though.
>>911015
>"Literal body and blood means physical, atomic flesh."
>Protestants cannot into Divine Mysteries of the Faith
And to think the Orthodoxy rants about Catholicism's like of connection and understanding of the spirtualness of God
>>911033
>"The examples that refute my point don't count"
>>911063
He's working backwards. He's come to a poorly understood conclusion without any consideration that he may be wrong.
>>911041
An author, being incapable of doing sociological research, instead makes sweeping generalizations about millions of people that make the KKK look like MLK. Nice work, Aksel!
>>911007
To be fair there were multiple parties, dedicated purely to Catholics.
>>910996
Don't forget, they also tend to be very secular and non religious.
In short, Protestantism naturally leads to irreligion.
>>910910
The understanding of one lacks sincerity if one seeks to quarrel with the other.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Importance_of_religion_by_country
>go down the list
>as countries become increasingly religious, they become increasingly unredeemable hellholes
Have the religious finally been beat the fuck out, or as some have come to call it, BTFO?
>>911077
>"It doesn't support my assumptions! I shall discount it!"
t. you
>>911079
Yeah, I know; maps like that can't really be used to determine any significant determinations. But he made a shitpost fueled by poor logic, so I did too.
>>911089
Hitler was an author. Clearly the Jews deserved the Holocaust. He was simply tapping into an innate German feeling when he wrote Mein Kampf.
>B-but that's not the same thing!
Protestantism is illegitimate Christianity.
Just look at this for example,
The first clear attitude to emerge on the relation between Scripture, tradition and the church was the coincidence view: that the teaching of the church, Scripture and tradition coincide. Apostolic tradition is authoritative but does not differ in content from the Scriptures. The teaching of the church is likewise authoritative but is only the proclamation of the apostolic message found in Scripture and tradition. The classical embodiment of the coincidence view is found in the writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian.
These both reject the Gnostic claims to a secret tradition supplementing Scripture. Apostolic tradition does not add to Scripture but is evidence of how it is correctly to be interpreted. This tradition is found in those churches which were founded by the apostles, who taught men whose successors teach today. These apostolic churches agree as to the content of the Christian message, in marked contrast to the variations among the heretics. It is important to note that it is the church which is the custodian of Scripture and tradition and which has the authentic apostolic message. There was no question of appealing to Scripture or tradition against the church. This is partly because the apostolic tradition was found in the church but not just for this reason: the Holy Spirit preserves the church from error and leads her into the truth. The real concern of Irenaeus and Tertullian was not with the relation between Scripture and tradition but with the identity of ecclesiastical with apostolic teaching. Any exposition of their teaching on Scripture and tradition which fails to show this is to that extent defective. (A.N.S. Lane, “Scripture, Tradition and Church: An Historical Survey”, Vox Evangelica, Volume IX – 1975, pp. 39, 40 –)
If one of their core doctrines can't even be found in Christianity's origins and infancy, why should we even take it seriously?
>>911097
>innate
>German
>feelings
Not him, but that is spooky
>>911103
since both aren't true I really don't give a shit on which one is more "legitimate"
>>911104
Don't worry, Germans don't have individual souls, they just have one big oversoul that feels for them all. This is why most German cities seem so dreary and lifeless, because Germany is really one conscious being and so nothing can surprise them.
Catholicism has Apostolic succession, while Protestantism doesn't, as another anon pointed out.
Protestants seem to be more hostile to Catholics than vice versa, most of the shitflinging was started by Protestants, by definition.
Protestantism leads to chaos and revolution and ultimately social disintegration and incorporation into the secular state. It isn't good. It's a historical aberration.
>>911126
For Switzerland, not quite.
For Austria, I'm sold, but not for long.
>Christianity is the predominant religion in Austria. At the 2001 census, 73.6% of the country's population was Roman Catholic.[1] As of 2015, the number of Catholics has dropped to 59.9% of the population.[2][3]
>>911111
And nobody cares about you.
>>911103
The Catholic church has most certainly not been preserved from error. If you look at its history, it has been home to the same corruption, violence, and error that has been found in every earthly organization of men since men discovered politics.
Just because the Catholic church has an apostolic origin does not justify its previous acts any more than the fact that Judaism in the time of Jesus had Mosaic origins justifies the abuses of the teachers and holy men of His time.
I'm sure you have the rhetoric to respond to these, but first allow me to clarify that my only real admonishment is to put your faith in Jesus Christ over the words and opinions of men. If your belief is that the writings, rules, and theologies of all of the men who have ever participated in a Catholic church are equivalent to that of Jesus Christ, so be it; I've said my peace.
>>911179
I do though :3
>>911180
So a corrupted institution has more legitimacy than your little sect and its sisters.
Wow, it can't get more embarrassing than that
>>911172
Still fiscally the same, but largely due to immigration from my understanding.
>>911189
I don't seek to yolk the legitimacy of my beliefs together with corrupt institutions; many Protestant denominations have themselves proven themselves to be corrupt and hostile. Likewise, I don't blindly reject the teachings of any one denomination: the Holy Spirit will speak truth through any who sincerely heed its call.
I instead seek (by the grace of God) to yolk myself together with the inhabitants of the kingdom of heaven, my brothers and sisters in Christ. Those who are my brothers and sisters aren't defined by a single institution; rather, they are a part of many institutions-- Roman Catholic, Eastern Catholic, Protestant, and otherwise.
Regardless of my denomination, my allegiance and faith are in Jesus Christ.
>>911227
You aren't addressing the argument since I'm appealing to evidence from Christianity's infancy which shows all Protestants to be illegitimate by default.
Your claim here simply leads to theological solipsism. Each of the branches you describe subscribe to contradictory versions of Christ and his own words and claims.
A cannot be A and not A at the same time.
Given this we can safely say that God doesn't exist or only one of them got it right.
>>910910
Protestant here.
Thread is going exactly like I expected.
>>911249
Your understanding of my position isn't quite complete. The development of human understanding of any natural phenomenon is simply not atomic and certainly not constant or monotonically increasing. As a simple example, take a look at the evolution of the physical models of the universe we currently use to understand the physical workings of the world around us.
In the simplest sense, what I'm saying is closer to this:
A, the 'true religion' as given by Jesus Christ, is a set composed of { X, Y, Z }. Currently, due to human action and human limitation, Roman Catholicism contains a set of beliefs { Q, R, X, Y }. Methodism, for example, contains a set of beliefs { S, T, Y, Z }. The subsets {S, T} and {Q, R} may contradict one another, but the set corresponding to each branch has a non-empty intersection with the set that describes the truth, A.
Under this (semi-) formalization, my argument is that different paradigms of understandings of A can encompass the true state of A without requiring either one to wholly subsume A. In this sense, A can exist without any one set of understanding being completely correct.
>>911007
>doesn't know that Zentrum basically had the Catholic locked up
>that map seems to be including Nazi coalition partners
>ignore the fact that the Nazi Party had its roots in Catholic Munich
What are you trying to prove with this post?
catholic born catholic bred an when im gone ill be catholic ded :DDD
>>911296
>Currently, due to human action and human limitation
Sounds like youre working with a deist notion of God. In Christianity, God is seen as actively guiding his Church. God would be a bit of a dick if he never maintained an institution that teaches what he revealed correctly.
>>911296
>set theory
>introduced by Georg Cantor
>German son of a Protestant convert from Catholicism
>progression of this thread
>mfw I have no face
>>911343
Men have managed to skew revelation from God in the past, have they not? In Christianity, it is also believed that God directly revealed truth to men. God revealed Himself directly to Moses, said, 'this is how you should live,' and actively helped guide the establishment of Israel. As you know from the Biblical history of Israel, the Jews, despite being given revelation directly, were still in need of a savior to right their path.
The issue with relying on the Christian notion of guidance of the Church in your argument is that even this is one of those contradictory set elements that differ between denominations. I would agree that I believe God is guiding His Church (including the part of which lies within the Catholic church), but I would also pose that God's Church isn't a single organization. Between all of the branches of Christianity, I would say that God is actively guiding his Church of believers, ensuring that the entire truth he revealed is at least present between them. This is especially necessary when you consider the past abuses of older institutions; it's impossible to maintain the infallibility and absoluteness of a single organization as the one true Church at any one time given that any corruption (something which essentially all churches have been guilty of) causes it by definition to be separate from a perfect God.
>>911384
>Men have managed to skew revelation from God in the past, have they not?
Sure, but there is always a prophet that is sent to set them straight.
>The issue with relying on the Christian notion of guidance of the Church in your argument is that even this is one of those contradictory set elements that differ between denominations.
Well those other denominations are wrong, and demonstrably so.
> it's impossible to maintain the infallibility and absoluteness of a single organization as the one true Church at any one time
It isnt impossible at all when God is guiding that Church. It would be impossible if one were to believe in ecclesial deism, and ecclesial deism is pretty much contradictory to what Jesus preached.
And your belief that each denomination holds some truth is pretty much a denial that God actually "revealed" himself to specific group, since God doesnt deceive into believing false doctrines. And to make "the lies of men" more powerful than God's revelation is problematic with God's providence
>>911015
>What is transubstantiation
>What is Substance Theory
>>911296
This still doesn't answer the argument.
Yes, there will be things that all sides can agree on. But when other aspects of dogma are taken into account, this becomes null as the very intentions and will of the very being all sides agree upon are very different, ending up with opposing views of the very persona of the deity worship.
Who could not even forget, the very authority of the Scriptures which now divides the camp into two sides where one sees Tradition as a guide to the authority of Scripture and the other, Tradition as subservient to it.
So try being fancy with set theory all you want, you only point out that there are things everyone can agree upon.
By this logic, all religions are equally valid given that there'll be things which they can agree upon.
This trick can only work on a religion like Buddhism where all sides despite disagreement won't end up with a deity condemning them for the wrong understanding of it.
>>911426
>set straight
What is the difference between a dissenter in a corrupt Catholic church and an agent sent to set that Church straight?
>those denominations are wrong, and demonstrably so
In this case, without relying on the teachings of your own denomination, demonstrate that they are wrong using nothing but the teachings of Christ.
>it isn't impossible
So you're saying that God is the root cause of the blatant acts of corruption and violence that have occurred in the Catholic church? Or are you merely stating that God was actively one with the body committing this act, simply passively watching and disagreeing?
>belief in truth in other denominations
I do believe that God revealed himself to humanity. I believe that humanity has, over the years, managed to disperse that truth and attempt to write over it with their own (human) intentions. At the same time, God's will is more powerful than the limited ambitions of men, because that truth still exists in the world and is accessible through a personal relationship with God.
That is not to say that false doctrines do not exist. However, here's my question: how will you prove that your doctrines are not false without yourself relying on them?
I'm seeing a cyclic progression of logic here.
>Why is the Catholic church absolute?
>Because it has roots in the infancy of Christianity
>Why is the Catholic church, despite its errors and failings, the sole arbitrator of the truth present since the infancy of Christianity?
>Because the Catholic church is absolute
>>911459
>this becomes null
In what way does it become null? Specifically point out these opposing views you're identifying.
>Tradition
What did Jesus have to say about tradition and scripture? What did Jesus have to say at all?
>only point out things that everyone can agree upon
I pointed out that the Catholic church has strayed from what Jesus taught during the course of history. I have also demonstrated in a relatively formal sense how the reality of truth can simultaneously not be precisely what any one denomination believes while also existing in the world. I have only done this to clarify that the issue is more than A being A and not A at the same time.
>all religions are equally valid
I never said this, nor do I believe it. I believe that Jesus Christ is the truth. I believe that other religions can contain aspects of the truth, but that, unlike Christianity, they do not collectively contain the whole truth.
>condemnation for the wrong understanding
Are you not stepping into dangerous waters? If perfect understanding is a requirement for salvation, do you not imply that salvation is not for those who are otherwise unable to grasp faith beyond simply believing in Jesus Christ as savior? What did Jesus Christ say was necessary to be saved?
>>910910
For government, order, and arguably the common man, I'd say Catholicism. It has intrinsic order and takes a lot of responsibility off of the common man in terms of theological studies. And most Catholics don't have the presumption of understanding a lot, whereas with Protestantism, it seems more of a free-for-all
And I'm a Protestant. My roommate studied theology as a major, and I took a lot of classes during uni for fun, and I think if I had more time to delve into that stuff, I'd lean to Catholicism myself, or something more traditional, Anglican, Orthodox etc.
That being said,in terms of pure soundness of theology, Protestantism seems to hit closer to the mark.
>>910910
>Which do you believe is better for the common man
Pelagianism. Best for society.
>>911508
a)Predestination
b)Free will
c)How Salvation works
d)Atonement
e)Scope of the Atonement
f)Sacraments
g)Eucharist
h)Use of imagery
i)Age of the Earth and Universe
j)Use of music in worship
k)Baptism
l)Infant Baptism
What Jesus taught to his disciples would be by definition, Tradition since those aren't magically Scripture. Scripture was simply the OT at the time.
Secondly, saying that differing sects have differing set of beliefs yet having things which they agree upon does not disprove the issue of A being not A at the same time which becomes a huge problem when Protestants with opposing beliefs recognize each other as valid.
Also, by trying to appear smart through the use of Set Theory, the implication is that all religions are as valid too since they have certain aspects of the truth since there are things they all and the Christian sects can agree upon. Thus they are by your own logic, as valid as every other Christian sect.
Perfect understanding is not required for Salvation but, the deity and its intentions alongside core beliefs must be the same or non contradictory, not opposing to each other as we see in Protestantism. Once this happens we get a deity that wills contradictory things and with your approach of simply shrugging all differences aside and being hypocritical in your approach to the Catholics, you end up with theological solipsism. Nobody even knows what Jesus or God is saying or the very contents of his own words.
Roman Catholicism is a mixture of witchcraft, Judaism, paganism, and perverted Christianity. Witches thrived and were ordained by the Vatican. Meanwhile, true Christians spread the word that the Vatican was the Whore of Babylon (of the Book of Revelation).
Mary worship, and the icon of the virgin with child is derived from the image of Semiramis (the "Queen of Heaven") and her baby Tammuz (Baal)
praying to Mary is blasphemy,bowing to a statue of mary is idolatry,claiming that mary is a co redeemer along side Christ is heresy,and praying to the dead saints is necromancy.
So which part of the catholic religion is the true religion?it's the true religion of lucifer.
>>911581
>Witches thrived and were ordained by the Vatican
Source?
>Meanwhile, true Christians spread the word that the Vatican was the Whore of Babylon (of the Book of Revelation)
First, you must prove, BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT, that the Roman Catholic Church is the biblical "Babylon the Great". Anything less than 100% indisputable fact would be false testimony
>Mary worship
Doesnt exist in the Catholic Church
>and the icon of the virgin with child is derived from the image of Semiramis (the "Queen of Heaven") and her baby Tammuz (Baal)
Mother and Child symbolism. Nothing inherently wrong with that
>praying to Mary is blasphemy
>praying to the dead saints is necromancy
>Implying "praying" is anything more than asking your fellow Christians in Heaven
>Implying physical death breaks our bond as fellow Christians.
Absolutely heretical
>claiming that mary is a co redeemer along side Christ is heresy
Except we don't. We believe that her role as Theotokos/Mother of God the Son was a very important step in the salvation of mankind
>>911639
*asking your fellow Christians in heaven to pray for you
>>911639
Where do you think the word "pope" is derived from? Roman Christianity was never "real" christianity, and around AD 376, Gratian the emperor of Rome, refused the title of Pontifex Maximus because he realized this.
It was a strictly babylonian/mother child cult worshiping title. This is the first time a pope was elected in the Roman Catholic Church AS THAT TITLE. He was Demasus. The entire prefex of what a pope is, is pagan. It is a mix of christianity and paganistic baylonian mother/child cult worship.
I would like any naysayers to do research into the subject. The ancient rites of Babylon involved veneration of images, relics, pilgrimages, etc. The Roman Catholic Church copied this to a fault. It is idolatrous and paganistic.
>>911058
it's not a mystery, it's just symbolism. Unless you want to bizarrely claim that the host and wine turn back into their original form when inspected after consumption then that's all it is.
>>911572
>what Jesus taught would be tradition
What did Jesus teach?
>trying to appear smart
Who said I was trying to appear smart? It seems you're becoming slightly agitated by my use of formalism, and for that I apologize. My implication was not that all religions are correct. Yes, one could argue that religions are given validity by the fact that they contain truth; is there something wrong with this? What is the point of a religion that holds no truth?
The original point of my example was to illustrate that the teachings of Christ can exist in their fullness in the world without having to compromise and have God participate directly in the corruption and violence perpetrated in the Catholic church's past by asserting that the Roman Catholic church is the 'one true church.'
>perfect understanding is not required for Salvation
>but you must understand what the theology of Roman Catholicism dictates
This is a contradiction itself. As somebody who grew up Protestant, the differences between Protestant denominations are in no way significant enough to come to the point where they invalidate the core hope of salvation or the belief in a God of grace.
>shrugging differences aside
On the contrary. I embrace the differences and use them to grow on my path as a Christian. I struggle within myself and with God to find what the truth is.
Forgive me for being blunt, but it seems you're projecting a bit by trying to view me as a hypocrite.
>deity that wills contradictory things
Jesus told his disciple not to live by the sword; the Catholic church sponsored violent war. If God is always at the head of the Roman Catholic Church, God sponsored this violence. That's contradiction.
>solipsism
Do you know what solipsism means? By definition, your view that everything that is not Catholicism is illegitimate is solipsistic, as is your assertion that only either Protestants or Catholics can exclusively be right about anything.
>>911748
That's reformist heterodoxy that wouldn't pass muster with the Vatican, you fucking heretic.
Anyone who
>"denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue" and anyone who "saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood - the species only of the bread and wine remaining - which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation, let him be anathema."[20]
>>911731
>Where do you think the word "pope" is derived from?
From the Greco-Roman word "Pateras"?
>muh Pontifex Maximus
Literally means "highest pontifex (bridge builder)". Common term for the highest ranking priest in the Roman Empire's official religion (Bear in mind that Christianity was declared the official religion of the Empire in AD 380)
Therefore, using the term to define the highest-ranking priest in historical Christianity would not be wrong.
>veneration of images, relics
used as a sign of respect to the person/deity in question. (Note: RESPECT. WE DO NOT WORSHIP THE SAINTS AS GODS. THE ONLY BEING WE WORSHIP AS A GOD IS,WELL, GOD. Anyone who says otherwise is a damned liar.)
>pilgrimages
prove that it is inherently wrong to go on pilgrimages to holy sites. (REMEMBER: Jerusalem is explicitly stated to be a sacred city in biblical text. Choose your words WISELY.)
>>911801
>Therefore, using the term to define the highest-ranking priest in historical Christianity would not be wrong.
If you read in Hebrews we see that Jesus is the High Priest. We don't go to the priest to confess our sins when we can go straight to Jesus.
Maybe this is why the Roman Catholic church is refered to as the Great Whore---because they are going to someone other than Jesus to confess sins.
>>911482
>What is the difference between a dissenter in a corrupt Catholic church and an agent sent to set that Church straight?
there are no agents that are sent to set the Church straight, rather the Church sets things straight.
>In this case, without relying on the teachings of your own denomination, demonstrate that they are wrong using nothing but the teachings of Christ.
That's not the right approach to the issue though. In order to prove the other denominations wrong one would have to see if their teachings are the teachings of Christ and are consistent with them.
>So you're saying that God is the root cause of the blatant acts of corruption and violence that have occurred in the Catholic church?
No, I said that God has made Church teaching remain orthodox.
>because that truth still exists in the world and is accessible through a personal relationship with God.
How is His will more powerful if a man's will is able to override His will?
>I'm seeing a cyclic progression of logic here.
Well I dont know what youre seeing, but it isnt the Catholic Church, since the answer to both of your questions is "because it was established by Christ"
>>911830
>We don't go to the priest to confess our sins when we can go straight to Jesus.
>because they are going to someone other than Jesus to confess sins.
But we do confess to God. However, we are also expected to openly confess our sins to mortal men too.
It's explicitly stated in scripture that we should.
It is also explicitly stated that Christ's disciples would be given the ability to forgive sins.
>If you read in Hebrews we see that Jesus is the High Priest.
Well, yeah. The Pope is seen as the highest priest among mortal men. But he is still subservient to the "true" High Priest
>>911788
I'm an agnostic you mackerel-snapping papist. I don't give a shit that the Vatican says I'm wrong unless they explain why. If I inspect a Catholic's poop after they take communion I wont find digested human flesh.
>>911855
>It's explicitly stated in scripture that we should.
>It is also explicitly stated that Christ's disciples would be given the ability to forgive sins.
I'm not Christian, but where does it say this?
>>911855
>Well, yeah. The Pope is seen as the highest priest among mortal men. But he is still subservient to the "true" High Priest
The title that the pope goes by; Vicarius Filii Dei, Vicar; means , representing and in place of Filli Dei= Son of God. this title is seen on the popes tiara . The same blasphemy written on her forehead.
>>911777
Let's start with John 6 where he declares that one must eat his flesh and drink his blood to have eternal life. When he affirmed his flesh as true food and blood, as true drink, the Greek word for "true" literally means "unconcealed reality" and "things as they are".
My point isn't about the Catholic Church. My point is that Protestantism is invalid. So this doesn't concern it. I like how you misrepresent my arguments and pathetically try to act smart only to end up looking pathetic.
Differences matter when they present contradictory and opposing versions of God which we find in the Protestant denominations. The opposition are many and cover important issues.
Thus your whole attempt to window dress this doesn't solve anything.
Also, good job misrepresenting my use of "solipsism". I explicitly said "theological solipsism" here, referring to how Protestantism leads to a climate where nobody knows the very things God said in the Scriptures. Of course, what kind of a deity would hide the truth that would save? Only an evil one who wants most to die and burn.
>>911860
>On confessing sins to one another
"Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective." -JohN 5:16
On the ability to forgive sins
When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained. -John 20:22-23
>>911864
>Vicarius Filii Dei
No Pope has called himself this though. Only Chick tract tier people call him that
>>911864
So it literally means, in the context of Christianity, "Representative of Christ"?
Is that not what the Pope claims to be? A representative of Christ? An apostle?
Also, show me where the Bible EXPLICITLY says that "Vicarius Filii Dei" is written on Babylon.
>>911088
Its "Blown the fuck out"
>>910984
Episcopalians aren't Christians
>>910996
>France
>Switzerland
>Lichtenstein
>Northern Italy
>Bavaria
>Rheinland
>Monaco
Although your entire point falls flat on it's face entirely
The Islamic world was wealthier than Christian Europe for centuries, but that hardly made it any more true. Pagan Rome was wealthier than Christian Rome, but paganism isn't any more true because of that. Japan is an atheist nation better than most every Protestant nation worldwide, but you aren't saying atheism is correct. Basically you're just making a non-argument
>>911936
>name either ultra-secular mixed states or miniature pseudo-duchies
And the argument transcends faith either way. Christianity is no more "right" than Islam which is no more "right" than Buddhism which is no more "right" than Satanism which is no more "right" than worshipping your own taint sweat. If you want to compare religions, look at actual, present, measurable outcomes, not whose miracle-working mythic man had the highest power level 1500 years ago or more.
Meanwhile, Japan is relatively atheist and has a higher HDI, like you said. On this we agree; and yet, while secularism makes for great outcomes, if you're stuck between Protestantism and Catholicism, it's clear which to go for.
>>911864
That's a lie
The pope's title is Vicarius Christi
There has never been a papal title known as Vicarius Filii Dei
>>911953
>I'm going to just discard everything that disproves my point
>Atheist
Shitpost discarded
>>911878
>"Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective." -JohN 5:16
First of all, you mean James, not John. Secondly, the vast majority of Greek texts say faults, not sins.
>When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained. -John 20:22-23
http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/16/16-3/16-3-pp129-138_JETS.pdf
Looks to be a translational error. And also, the first person to say they could forgive sins was in the 3rd century...and they were declared an imposter.
>>911969
"no"
>>911977
Dubs doesn't make that an argument.
>>911979
Dubs makes it absolute fact unless you reply with trips shitposterkun
>>911015
>Tantum ergo sacrementum
>veneremur cernui:
>et antiquum documentum
>novo cedat ritui:
>præstet fides supplementum
>sensuum defectui
>>911015
It's too late for the Church to back down on it now, too many people have fought and died over the issue.
>>910917
So you are part of the East Orthodox Church then?
>>911748
You may be right; after all, there's no way that the power of God could ever cause something to simultaneously be 100% of Man's Earth and 100% Divine at the same ti-HEY, WAIT A MINUTE!!!!
>see religion spammed on /his/
>decide to go a cool looking cathedral in my college town for Sunday mass one morning and it's just a bunch of babies crying nonstop and kids running down the aisles while the priest ignores them.
>go to methodist church a couple weeks later that I often drive by and it's just the same shit with a few extra songs they make you sing.
What is the point of going to church if you can't even focus on the lesson trying to be taught with all of the crying babies and kids knocking about. Secondly what is a baby getting out of a church sermon every Sunday?
>>912059
Why he would he be a member of a nonchristian church like the Orthodox church?
>>912096
Mass is about the Eucharist
Literally consuming the body and blood of Christ, receiving God's sanctifying grace, and keeping the sabaath holy as per the commandments
>>912096
Most of the churches I'e been to usually have a room in the back where they put the youngest kids who can't handle themselves with a babysitter.
I know most Catholic churches have a "Sunday Vigil" they hold on Saturday Evening, usually around 5 or 6. Try attending one of those; they're usually a lot less crowded.
>>912096
Do you even Matthew 19:14?
>>912096
>What is the point of going to church if you can't even focus on the lesson trying to be taught with all of the crying babies and kids knocking about
having an excuse to wear your seersucker suit and chat with pretty girls afterwards
Better For Society: Catholicism. Rigid sense of right and wrong, people all held to equal standard of subservience to God. However, as we saw in Martin Luther's time, Catholicism led to terrible political hierarchies and corruption. Hard to say whether or not it's the religion's fault or it's the political atmosphere's fault. Same situation goes on in the Middle East today.
Better for Politics: Protestantism. Protestantism has similar philosophies as the U.S. constitution. Protestantism promotes private worship, personal spirituality, peace to one another. U.S. (debatably) was founded on those precepts, and we are the highest functioning country of our geographical size and population.
>>912133
Do conservative parties really not interfere with society and social lives in the UK?
In the US, both parties want to interfere with social values. The non-interference is mostly in terms of economics.
>>912145
Conservative economics promote freedom from government-enforced restrictions. The fewer the restrictions, the more people are able to work as much as they want, make as much money as they want, etc. Seems like the best economic model except...
The only problem is that there is no natural standard for worth of labor, and many people feel cheated by their employers, especially when the only job they can get allows no mobility and pays very low. These overworked, underpaid workers turn to the government for help. Thus the government makes ethical decisions FOR employers, since many are to callous to make the right ones themselves.
>>912104
>Literally
>>912133
Wrong. Enlightenment values which aren't really related to Protestantism have those values. Protestantism simply created the climate for such to arise.
The Catholic Pope is a big fucking joke
>>912834
>Protestantism simply created the climate for Enlightenment to arise.
*Protestantism simply created the climate for atheism to arise.
>>913026
*tips KJV Bible*
>>911874
>quoting Jesus
Now we're getting somewhere. So the sum of Jesus' teachings were to eat his flesh and blood? Were there places in Jesus' teaching where he used literal phrasing to convey metaphorical meaning?
>Protestant is invalid
Why is Protestantism invalid? "Because only Catholicism" is valid isn't an answer; you've yet to legitimately establish why Protestantism is invalid, nor have you qualified what "Protestantism is invalid" really means. Are you saying that a person's faith in Jesus Christ are invalidated because they choose not to subscribe to a fallible human organization?
I don't know why you continue to insult me. I am not trying to appear smart; I'm simply trying to have a discussion that comes down to more than "Protestantism is invalid because Protestantism is invalid" or "Catholicism is absolute because it was established by Christ." Arguably, any genuine faith in Christ is established by Christ. The scriptures say this as well.
>opposing versions of God
You've yet to establish how Protestants and Catholics have different versions of God. Who does Catholicism say God is?
>solipsism
Protestantism does not lead to a climate in which people do not know the things God says in the scriptures; Protestantism leads to a climate in which there is dissent with the Catholic interpretation of what God says in the scriptures.
Transubstantiation is denied in the word of God by Christ Himself, and it was not a dogma of the catholic faith until the Council of Trent .
>>913260
Also, let's say for a moment that the Roman Catholic church, as it is now, is genuinely the one true Church on Earth. In this Church, the pope is the foremost human authority in the Catholic church, drawing (in the Catholic interpretation) a direct line of authority to Jesus Christ through Peter.
Recently, with pope Francis' permission, the Vatican has honored Martin Luther by naming a square in Rome after him. If the Catholic view truly is that Protestantism is invalid, why would it honor one of its most influential proponents? Similarly, the Vatican has cooperated with the Lutheran church to devise and release a common prayer to be used in services as a commemoration of the Protestant reformation.
If Lutheranism is invalid as a result of the fact that it's a Protestant denomination, is the Church not currently yoking itself together and accommodating invalid belief by integrating its influence into its services? Is this not a direct contradiction of what Jesus taught?
Or, if the Church is justified in its current stance that Lutheranism holds validity, as would be expected if the Church has Christ at the helm, what does this say about your own stance that it is invalid? Do you know better than the pope, the Vatican, and the actions of the church? By definition, aren't you now also protesting some aspect of the Church, just as Martin Luther did?
>>910910
Atheism.
>>913418
Autism
>>913450
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27pLEFtSrXI
>>910910
Better or worse are degenerate terms.
Catholicism isn't real Christianity
>B-BUT MUH ONE TRUE SCOTSMAN
I'm pretty sure incorporating pagan deities into Christianity isn't exactly what Christ had in mind desu senpai. They're not Christian elements at all; you're just pretending that they are and go through a thousand Olympics worth of mental gymnastics to make it so.
>>913260
Nice job misrepresenting me and IGNORING my points.
I never said that it is the overall sum of Jesus' teachings to eat his flesh and blood. I only stated that Jesus said that one must eat his flesh and drink his blood referring to his disclosure in John 6.
I had also already established prior why Protestantism is invalid with its core doctrine of Sola Scriptura NOT being present in Christianity's infancy at all. In fact, the view of the relationship between Scripture and Tradition then contradicts Sola Scriptura. But of course, hey, let's ignore that which I cited from ANS Lane prior!
My position isn't contingent upon Catholicism's validity only that it is more valid than Protestantism given they are closer to that which we find in Christianity's infancy.
Gnostics, Docetists, Nestorians, all have genuine faith that their positions despite their deviation from Scripture and Tradition being true. By your own logic then, they are valid as well despite the opposing versions of Christ being presented by them!
I had also established opposition between the Protestants on important matters of faith. I had listed areas where disagreements occur. Oh wait, guess that didn't occur to you!
Protestantism leads to a climate where the meaning of Scriptures can NEVER be known. This is already examplified by the opposing views present between them. All sides use the same methodology of Sola Scriptura and justify their position through it. Given all sides going "muh Scripture", we are left in a stalemate not knowing anything about what Scripture is saying which has been my point again and again which you never addressed with the exception of trying to appear smart only to look like an idiot!
>>913621
>>913621
except YHVH is a pagan deity
Ireland - one of the best countries in the world to live in
Northern Ireland - Shithole
Case closed
>>910910
Catholicism at least has some kind of point to it, and the church can be some kind of player in society.
Protestants however are either catholics that answer to a secular government and whose theology is read out of a government program, or nutjobs that don't even know how to spell theology.
>>913793
>300 years of torture
the only intense persecution of christians was at the end of the 3rd century
>>910910
>Which is better? Vanilla ice cream or vanilla ice cream?
Atheism.
>>913653
I see you've become upset. I assure you, no matter the intelligence I have or hope to have, your points have been acknowledged. I would warn you that you have quite the rocky road ahead of you if you expect everybody to bend to your rationale.
You've missed my question. Does Jesus not also speak in parable and in metaphor? In what way does metaphorical interpretation of Jesus' discussion of the body and the blood in John 6 contradict perception of the identity of God?
>Sola Scriptura
Not all Protestant denominations believe in Sola Scriptura. It doesn't require belief in Sola Scriptura to make a case against Roman Catholicism on the basis of tradition. Take a look at the Eastern Catholic Church.
>my position isn't contingent upon Catholicism's validity
Did you not say earlier in the thread that either Catholics are right and Protestants are wrong, else God does not exist? This position, at least, completely hinges on the validity of the Catholic church as determined by its ability to be right.
>Gnostics, Docetists, and Nestorians all have genuine faith
If they have genuine faith in what they believe, they have genuine faith in what they believe. That doesn't make them right; nor does it put them outside of God's influence to show them the truth.
>I've mentioned important areas of faith
You mean hot topics in Catholic theology. I asked you to specifically list how and why differences in those interpretations suddenly invalidate the identity of Protestants as Christians, but you've given no answer. My only guess would be that you hesitate because you require reference to circular logic to justify yourself.
>Protestantism leads to a climate where the meaning of the Scriptures can't be known
The problem with this statement is that, to substantiate it, you have to assert that The Roman Catholic Church as the one true arbitrator of the meaning of the scriptures.
>>910985
Besides being an oxymoron?
>>914496
You aren't an authority.
>>910986
Jesus would prefer that to thinking you're a cannibal and a vampire.
>>914530
I am not an authority. I am just a person asking questions. Should I not ask questions?
>>913653
>I never said that it is the overall sum of Jesus' teachings to eat his flesh and blood. I only stated that Jesus said that one must eat his flesh and drink his blood referring to his disclosure in John 6.
Did He?
John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.
Let me put this into context for you, and anyone who cares about such things.
Jesus had fed 10,000 people with a few loaves and fish. A number of times. People were starting to follow Him because He was, in the words of the immortal Sam Kinison, the Miracle Catering Man.
So Jesus challenged the people who were following Him. Are you here for the bread and the fish and the wine? Or are you here for Me?
If you're here for the bread and the wine, then here I Am. I am the Bread. My flesh is bread indeed, to be broken for the sins of the world. My blood is drink indeed, to be spilled out for the sins of the world.
If you want to follow Me, you must eat My flesh, and drink My blood, or you have no part in Me.
And at this, many turned away. No more free sandwiches. Just a lunatic telling people they have to eat His flesh, and drink His blood.
Jesus watching them depart, asked His disciples if they were going to leave Him too.
"Lord", says Peter, "where would we go? For you alone have the WORDS OF LIFE".
If you want to be Catholic, and care about Peter, do what Peter says, and take into you the WORD OF LIFE. Not the cracker, not the wine or juice, but Him. Jesus. The Word of Life.
Because if you do not have the Breath of Life, the Holy Spirit of God in you, eating all the crackers in the world, and drinking all the wine in the world, is of no avail.
You MUST be born again to see the Kingdom. MUST.
>>914536
What were people for 1,500 years prior to a Catholic priest that didn't get the papacy that said everyone is an authority?
>>913793
No, he decriminalized Christianity, and eventually Christianity was paganized by Rome, and spread in its pagan form to Constantinople. Constantine was never a Chrisitan, and Arius is the man who purportedly baptized Constantine on his death bed. Arius the heretic. Constantine the sun god worshiper, and patron of the temple of Apollo.
Neither Arius nor Constantine has any part in the Kingdom of God.
>>913798
Bullshit. Read the Meshe Stele before you make yourself an even bigger fool.
>>913848
If the world matters to you, go Catholic.
If heaven matters to you, be born again.
>>914612
Filthy cultist heretic.
>>914530
Do you only listen to authority, and then blindly?
>>914596
As the bible says, let every man be convinced in his own heart as to what he believes is true.
>>914615
What does it profit a man to gain the entire world, yet lose his soul?
Or what would a man give in exchange for his very soul?
>>914638
The authorities are the apostles and their Churches.
>>914645
Christianity = Apostolic authority and traditions if you do not have this you aren't a Christian, you are someone who invents his own religion with a book of traditions.
>>914638
Jesus came to set men free, and all you can do is scurry under anyone's boot who lifts it to you.
It's really kind of sad.
>>914652
>authority and traditions
That's Catholicism, and many other religions, but not Christianity.
>>914657
You aren't an authority to decide what Jesus came to do stupid idiot, the Bible isn't an authority.
>>914659
I don't consider you Christians you are simply a humanist modernist cult with no foundations for existence, no authority for your interpretations, pure fan fiction non sense.
>>914659
Show me where Jesus gave you the Authority to decide what he wants you to do.
>>914659
Jesus wants you to be a Catholic I'm an authority just like you :^)
>>914663
You don't need the Bible to be a Christian what you need is to follow the Apostles traditions and authority for interpretations, the Apostolic Churches of today are the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church, these are the only Churches with authority everything else has no authority.
>>914701
Doesn't the RCC deny that the EOC has authority?
>>914760
No.
>>914778
Wait, so why do they say you need to be Catholic to go to Heaven (barring exceptions)?
This thread... Christians fighting Christians.
Which Christians are better for society? Gee... idk.
>And then the Catholic said, "I'm not Pagan"
>>914823
I don't even know how you can even believe in Protestantism, do you honestly believe your will and interest is truth?
I do not have the authority to interpret traditions of scriptures, only the Church has that authority.
>>914836
>only the Church has that authority
>t. the Church :DDDD
>>914819
>You need to belong to the Apostles Churches.
I'm not Christian, so I don't know what that means.
>>914811
Because they're a cult.
>>914836
>I do not have the authority to interpret traditions of scriptures
Can you read?
>>914845
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentarchy
Having to teach Christianity to people is tiresome.
There were quite a few Churches that were equal in authority to the Roman one, they were conquered.
>>914496
You mean by ignoring or somehow misrepresenting my arguments? Yeah, I get that. That's what you been doing this whole time and now you want to be arrogant as fuck.
We know that Jesus isn't being metaphorical because of the fact that he uses "alethes" in verse 54 referring to his flesh being true food and his blood. as true drink.
>Strong's Concordance
aléthés: true.
Original Word: ἀληθής, ές
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: aléthés
Phonetic Spelling: (al-ay-thace')
Short Definition: unconcealed, true
Definition: unconcealed, true, true in fact, worthy of credit, truthful.
HELPS Word-studies
Cognate: 227 alēthḗs (an adjective, derived from 1 /A "not" and 2990 /lanthánō, "unnoticed, concealed") – true, as it accords with fact (reality), i.e. attested because tested – literally, "what can't be hidden." See 225 (alētheia).
[227 /alēthḗs ("what can't be hidden") stresses undeniable reality when something is fully tested, i.e. it will ultimately be shown to be fact (authentic).]
http://biblehub.com/greek/227.htm
Ouch, if this is metaphor, Jesus would be lying since it wouldn't match up. Metaphors are not things which are in accordance with reality. It's also why nowhere is "alethes" even used in a metaphorical context at all.
Now Protestantism's core tenet is Sola Scriptura. All sides agree. Anglicans who take the Prima Scriptura approach tend to be much more Catholic so that doesn't count. In fact this shows how ignorant you are of Protestantism itself and yet you dare speak as an authority. Disgusting.
I only said that we can only have one side getting it right or none. That's my point. Obviously given the historical disconnect, Protestantism got it wrong. Thus, it being illegitimate which is my point. This shows how deceitful you are.
(1)
>>914868
The Bible isn't an authority, it is a collection of Catholic traditions and works compiled by the Catholic Church in the 300s.
>>914845
Rome claims to have "apostolic authority" stemming from Jesus to Peter to the next pope to the current pope. They're very much like shiite muslims.
>>914888
That is the only way to have authority.
>>914888
Oh, thanks for the analogy I can relate to.
Are you saying papacy is passed down through family?
>>914607
*tips kjv bible*
>>914496
Cont.
I noticed how deceitful you are once more regarding my point about the opposition between Protestants. I FUCKING GAVE A LIST OF THEM MORON!
I had also explained how opposing differences apart from historical disconnect invalidate Protestantism repeatedly. You addressed none of these points apart from your pathetic use of Set Theory to look smart. Fucking cunt.
And once more, you misrepresent my argument by bringing in the Catholic Church. This has nothing to do with my point. It has the entire corpus of Tradition and the use of Reason to guide one through Scriptures, enabling a mechanism to filter out false interpretations of Scripture just like the other non Sola Scriptura churches which are by definition, NOT Protestant.
Protestantism of course cannot have this since the mechanism is somehow subservient to Scripture itself, not complimentary.
>>914593
Of course the real context also includes the condition that one must drink his blood and eat his flesh. The very word he used in describing this attests to this like it or not or, he is a deceitful liar.
(2)
dude, you got btfo. just stop while you're ahead
>>914897
Yes, the Nicolaitans put clergy over laity, and gave the clergy authority over the laity.
You may want to search "Nicolaitan" in the bible, to see what Jesus thinks of the practice.
>>914900
They call it an "unbroken chain of popes", even though that chain has been broken many times, and they have had many "infallible" popes declared antipopes. So, not family, but position.
>>914936
No I did not. He can't even answer my questions, arguments and misrepresent them and then try feigning humility and acting smart.
That's arrogance to the max.
>>914910
>Of course the real context also includes the condition that one must drink his blood and eat his flesh.
Does it?
Romans 14:17 [Full Chapter]
for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
1 Corinthians
Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, 2 all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.
>>914947
Interesting. I've heard of antipopes, and I thought to myself "lel this sounds unfalsifiable. If they shouldn't have been pope, they just call him antipope".
>>914885
The bible, finished in 95 AD, is a collection of Catholic traditions that started in 325 AD.
>>914945
The Bible was compiled by the Catholic Church.
>>914972
Yes, like the people who say the universe started with both matter and antimatter that summed up to zero, thus side-stepping the need to believe that something came from nothing.
As though having a basketball and an antibasketball was a meaningful statement.
>>914980
It was? Let's see. It was finished in 95 AD, and the Catholic church started in 325 AD, and subsequently put 73 books into the 66 book bible as their canon.
So, not so much.
>>914945
"christianity" was founded in 1500 by a disgruntled Catholic priest no.. it was founded by a king who wanted multiple marraiges... no it was founded by joseph smith who wanted polygamy... no it was founded by an anon on an image board in 2016.
>>914948
honestly, you should stop. your points of disagreement are ones people have literally had for centuries. it'd be ridiculous for either of you to try to think you're going to be the conclusive voice on the issue. the thing is that it doesn't even seem like he's trying to convince you to not write entire groups off as being invalid.
also, so what if the guy is smart? everybody has an opinion. you're coming off as defensive and threatened by the fact that somebody is challenging you. the guy hasn't thrown a single insult your way, but you keep going for the old ad hominem every time he raises a point.
not a very loving or christian way to treat somebody who is legitimately interested, imo.
>>914991
It was actually not until 367 AD that the church father Athanasius first provided the complete listing of the 66 books belonging to the canon.
He distinguished those from other books that were widely circulated and he noted that those 66 books were the ones, and the only ones, universally accepted.
The point is that the formation of the canon did not come all at once like a thunderbolt, but was the product of centuries of reflection.
>>914994
I guess we have to define our terms better.
Christianity was started when the followers of the Way were first called "Christians" at Antioch, likely in the 30's AD.
The word of course is derogatory, and means something like "these idiots think their leader came back to life".
Which is, of course, exactly what we believe happened.
In the 16th century, the Roman church had fallen to such a base level that a Catholic friar nailed 95 reforms to a gate in a futile effort to drain the swamp. That was not the beginning of Christianity, but the beginning of the Reformation.
>>915003
And yet, each of those 66 books had been in circulation for centuries prior to being compiled into one canon or the other.
Putting my doughnuts into your box does not mean you baked the doughnuts.
>>914969
Yes. This is why the Anchor Bible Dictionary's entry on the Last Supper explicitly notes that Jesus somehow identifies himself with the meal itself.
We see this thought echoed in the Church Fathers through Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and so on, all of whom agrees with this.
Either way, none of these explain away Jesus' plain and clear assertion of having to eat his flesh and drink his blood. His flesh and blood is the true food and true drink. And he isn't referring to this in the metaphorical sense given the very meaning of the original word used.
So either Jesus is lying and contradicting himself or that your interpretation is wrong as fuck
>>915002
Everyone thinks he's an authority, I guess a Muslim who believes Christ is God and the Bible can interpret the Bible to mean that all Christians should not have children and to be docile while Muslims/Jews kill them all.
everyone is not an authority, ONLY the apostles are authorities.
Shouldn't you "Christians" be out there doing "God's work?" What the fuck are you doing bickering over this nonsense? Shouldn't you be giving plastic surgery to deformed Africans? Feeding the hungry? Clothing the poor? Caring for the elderly? Living your lives by the example of Christ? Why are you sitting here in America, fighting your fellows on the internet?
Do you have any skills whatsoever? What fucking good is your compassionate faith?
>>915004
>in a futile effort
The Counter-Reformation is a thing ya know.
>>915004
What were people prior to this Catholic monk? and what was that monks father?
Did Jesus give authority to this monk?
>>915014
There were more books than that, the Church had to decide which books were canon and which weren't.
>>915002
Of those issues I had laid out, nobody in Christianity's infancy and the Church Fathers throughout history disagree on them. They may hold differing views but not opposing views regarding them.
It is only an area of disagreement amongst Protestants. I had also explained why this is dangerous given how it leads to a deity that contradicts itself! This is why I said A cannot be not A at the same time.
So either one sect got it right, or none.
He has misrepresented my points, ignored them and tried acting smart and smug. That's simply dishonesty and arrogance.
>>915023
This
>>914985
>I don't understand physics, therefore they are retarded
>>915044
Enlighten him, then.
>>915023
None of these peoples are Christians they all believe they are authorities.
>>915021
but you're also not an authority. are you an apostle? why should anybody care what you think?
so what if a muslim starts to believe that christ is god and begins to try to understand the bible? at that point, they're basically on the path to becoming a christian. are you really that opposed to a muslim becoming a christian?
and, no, saying a muslim converting to christianity automatically wants to genocide all christians isn't an argument. it's a ridiculous attack against a group of people that are probably more christ-like than you'll ever be with comments like those.
the saddest part about this is that it'd probably hurt your feelings for me to bring up the fact that a muslim convert to christianity is probably more genuine than you are. before you rage, just take a step back. do you really think that these are the kinds of arguments jesus (the guy who let himself be crucified like a criminal) would appreciate?
>>915017
He did. And Judas partook of that meal. Anyone thinking recreating that meal is salvation should take note that Jesus said Judas would have been better off had he never been born.
Jesus took bread, and broke it, and handed it to His disciples. He told them that it was His body, broken for them. For us. Same with the wine.
He did not, and could have, forced them to actually eat His flesh, and literally drunk His blood, if that is what is required for salvation.
Don't get me wrong. If that were required for salvation, I would do it.
I know that it is not, and that it is abhorrent to even consider Jesus telling people to violate the law, to eat human flesh, and to drink human blood.
I believe it has more to do with having the Holy Spirit of God enter into you, than flesh and blood.
>>915038
>just read conversation
>"He misrepresented my points"
You're both shit for wasting your time on here, but I'd definitely say that the most minor asshole award goes to the other anon.
>>915021
We do seem to be slaughtered a lot.
>>915050
this is /his/, not /sci/. I am not going to derail the thread to spoonfeed a lazy douch who can't even bring himself to google things.
>>915023
Telling you the good news of Jesus Christ is doing God's work; believing Jesus is Who He says He is, is doing God's work.
John 6:29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”
>>915025
Yes, a very bloody and violent thing. The Vatican has the blood of tens of millions of people on her hands, and apparently it's not enough.
>>915091
How would God send Himself?
>>915086
Jesus and most of the apostles were slaughtered for the sake of their faith. It's mockery to try to use the image of Christian suffering to make yourself feel more validated in an argument.
>>915030
Jesus gives everybody who believes in Him the authority to become a child of God:
John 1
He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
>>915082
You are not answering the problem with your approach.
Of course once it is accepted that the Eucharist is truly the body and blood of Christ, then one is actually eating his flesh and blood when partaking of it. But you don't allow this.
The question is of course, did Jesus kill himself so that he can be eaten? This is precisely why Jesus notes that the flesh profits nothing, to prevent carnal understandings of what he meant. But either way, somehow, his flesh and blood is somehow consumed and it must be this case or he would be lying on John 6 when he declares his flesh and blood, true food and true drink. Once this is metaphor, it no longer corresponds to reality. It is not as it truly is.
>>915036
That church decided for itself what its own canon would be. They chose the books of the bible, plus a few more.
Like they have Jesus, plus Mary.
Like they have the bible, plus tradition.
Like they have faith, plus works.
Until the "plus" takes over, and you just have another system of bondage being run like a kingdom of men.
>>914836
I don't understand how Catholics can submit so fully to the Church. Religion is about yourself and God, not yourself and the Church. The "organized" part of organized religion should never take precedence over the religion itself. Otherwise it just becomes a religious organization.
Sure, it's helpful for interpretation, but that does not mean it is flawless. It is not the end all be all.
Plus christian-ized pagan deities are still Pagan deities.
>>911748
>Unless you want to bizarrely claim that the host and wine turn back into their original form when inspected after consumption then that's all it is.
This is pretty much what Lutheranism claims; that unless the elements are being used for eating and drinking as commanded by christ in the scripture by faithful christians, the elements then cease to be christ.
>>915085
If any an asshole is better than an arrogant fool.
>>915102
It's a fascinating question, is it not? How can one being in three persons interact with Himself?
And yet, is that not our deepest desire? Unity in diversification? Intimate relationship? Belonging yet being independent?
>>915105
I was thinking of Nigerian christians getting gunned down by children at church services, not myself.
>>915138
This is off-topic, and you should be able to explain your doctrine without derailing.
>>915134
>arrogant fool
What is it that the Bible says again?
"But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire."
But, then again, Sola Fide is just for the Protestants, so perhaps you can ignore this.
>>915121
I'm not saying it is a metaphor.
I am saying it is a higher reality.
I am saying that spiritual food and spiritual drink are necessary for eternal life.
By eating and drinking physical food and physical drink, they enter into your body.
By consent, the Holy Spirit enters your body, and resurrects it for eternal life. It is this consumption, the Holy Spirit of Jesus, that causes a person to be saved, to be born again. Not some magical rite changing crackers and juice into human flesh and blood.
>>915127
They believe, and are taught, that there is no salvation outside of the Roman church. I know I am saved, and I know I am outside of the Roman church, so I know that to be a lie.
To the people on the inside, they do not know it is a lie, and they place their faith in the church to save them. And the church accepts their faith, and acts as the object of their faith, and promises to save them.
It's not a misguided institution, but an evil one with no hope of salvation and no intent on salvation.
>>915156
Look at how you are contradicting yourself.
If the higher reality enters your body through eating the physical food and drink in the Eucharist, then that's pretty much what the Catholics believe as well.
For your view to work, the physical food and drink cannot contain the higher reality or the "spiritual food and drink".
So, what the hell do you mean?
>>915152
And here we go having arrogant self righteous Protesturds
>>911581
Its all true, in catholicism, traditions of the church are canon.
>>915151
It's exactly the point of the Trinity; One God, yet manifested to us as three persons, Father Son and Spirit. If we say God is Love, and He is, Whom did He love before the creation of the world? Did not the Father love the Son, and the Son love the Spirit, and the Son and Spirit love the Father?
If we say that the Father is the greater for sending the Son, and He is, as the sender is greater than the One being sent, how do we then say that God is One? Is it not a problem with how we see beings?
Would not a hyper-dimensional being appear as something incomprehensible to us?
Take Flatland for instance. If you were to go to 2D world, and try to show them a cube, they would only see a side of the cube and call it a square. So you color the six sides of the square different colors, and you show the residents of 2D land the cube, one side at a time.
They say that there are six squares, while you are telling them that there is actually one cube.
If there is a God, and there is, is it not likely that His very being is beyond our ability to perceive? Are we not the residents of 3D land saying that God is three persons, when He is clearly stating that He is One?
>>915176
The belief of the Eucharist is that the crackers and juice contain the real presence of God, and for some reason must be taken repeatedly.
The Holy Spirit enters a man when that man confesses with his mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believes in his heart that God raised Him from the dead.
No crackers or juice involved.
The two are not the same, in any way, shape or form.
When you are saved, you realize that taking communion, taking the cracker and juice, trigger you to remember the hell Jesus went through in order to purchase our salvation.
We do it in remembrance of Him, not in an attempt to eat Him.
>>911581
Really love meeting people like you. Thank you for posting. Some of us know that posting the truth puts a target on your back.
>>915194
God is merciful, and He commands people to believe in Him. If it's nonsensical like the Trinity, people won't.
>>911639
Is Peter, your "first pope", a good enough authority for the proposition that Rome is Babylon?
1 Peter 5:13 She who is in Babylon, elect together with you, greets you; and so does Mark my son.
Is John the Revelator?
Revelation 17
The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls, having in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the filthiness of her fornication. And on her forehead a name was written:
MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT,
THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS
AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS
OF THE EARTH.
I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. And when I saw her, I marveled with great amazement.
...
And the woman whom you saw is that great city which reigns over the kings of the earth.”
>>915207
And thus lies the problem. Jesus explicitly declares his flesh and blood as true food and true drink. The Greek used for "true" means "to correspond to reality". But from your view this is not as he means. Thus, Jesus by logical consequence, contradicts himself and even lies outright!
The fact that he explicitly identifies himself with the meal in the Last Supper also entails that he is being consumed in some way in the meal. The fact that all the Church Fathers from the beginning affirmed the Real Presence belief already is telling that a Realist view is what Jesus would've meant in relation to this, not the metaphoric view you take.
>>915218
The Father said to believe in the Son, actually.
Is the Trinity nonsensical, or incomprehensible?
>>915143
Don't kid yourself. You were thinking entirely about yourself. That's the reason why you've responded with the tone you have to anybody in this thread who has attempted to express a differing opinion.
In essence, this is the only reason why you're still posting on this thread: you want to save face. At least one person in this thread was able to intelligently offer a rebuttal to your opinions, and you became flustered by the single fact that somebody was able to make and support rational points. You can't handle that. Now that he's no longer responding, you're using every opportunity to diminish what points he did make by attacking his character.
Then again, I have to ask, why are you here? You know as well as I do that, regardless of if it were a world-renowned scholar of Christian history and theology respected by all denominations or Jesus himself, if anybody in this thread had come and attempted to support an opinion that Protestant denominations have theological value and are legitimate strains of Christian belief, you would have none of it.
You would probably cling to your opinion, because the sole reason you're investing so much energy: you're not here to learn or hear what anybody else has to say; you want to be validated by others. What is it that you need? Do you need somebody to say, "Anon, you're so intelligent and knowledgeable! How could anybody in history ever have disagreed with you!"?
Tough luck. It won't happen. As you like to say, "you're not an authority." You're not an authority in Christianity, nor are you an authority anywhere else in the world. You're insignificant. You always will be until you at least gain the common wisdom of being able to admit when others say something of merit.
Until then, do us all a favor and stop posting. /his/ is for discussion of humanities, not helping you deal with your repressed anger at the fact that nobody in the real world acres for what you have to say.
>>915227
I know you believe that to be true. It is not true.
Jesus is the living bread; His body was broken on the cross.
Jesus is the fount of living water. His blood was shed on Golgatha.
Really. Really and truly, body broken, blood shed. That's the reality of the situation. Just like He broke the bread, He, the Bread of Life, was broken. Just like He poured out the wine, He, the fount of living water, was poured out on the ground.
And if you have no part in that, if you do not pick up your cross and follow Him, you have no part with Him.
Your explanation cannot be right for the very simple reason that nobody ever ate any part of Jesus' body, and nobody ever drank any of Jesus' blood. Ever. Not during His ministry, not at the Last Supper, not when He was crucified, and not at the grave where He rose.
But millions have had His Spirit enter into their body, and live with them, and give them a part with Jesus, to be His brothers and sisters, and joint heirs with Jesus.
The "Eat God, Be God" of the Catholics did not start at the Last Supper; it was a pagan belief for thousands of years prior to that. It's foul, and disgusting, and has nothing to do with the living God.
>>915227
Anon, I've got to say that your knowledge of the Christian faith is very impressive. I'm glad there are some wise people like you on 4chan.
>>915240
It was a throwaway post, actually. If you're not paying attention to the news, the Obama administration finally declared that the muslims in the Middle East are committing genocide against certain groups, including Christians.
And Christians have been slaughtered throughout the ages, without ceasing.
Has nothing to do with me. I was blessed to be born in a country where Christians are not murdered for being Christians.
>>915232
>The Father said to believe in the Son, actually.
God is not our Father. How could He be, when He punishes us for our sins?
And Jesus is not His son, either.
>Is the Trinity nonsensical, or incomprehensible?
Both
>>915207
It's right there, plain as day in black and white in the scriptures (which alone serve the basis of the christian faith):
>John 6:53
"So Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you."
>1 corinthians 11:29
"For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves."
Bro, according to the man himself, you have no life in you, and according to his apostle, you drink judgement on yourself.
>>915240
>you're using every opportunity to diminish what points he did make by attacking his character.
You confused me with a different person.
I cannot tell you why the person you confused me with is here, but I will tell you why I am here.
I am here because 8 men in heaven will be there, who might not have otherwise heard the gospel, and been saved.
And I want 9. And then 10. And then everybody.
>>915257
He's wrong.
>>915264
Fathers don't discipline their children?
>>915091
Yeah, i've heard the good news, and you already know i don't give a fuck. So what are you doing? Don't you think it's ironic that an atheist might know better than a Christian how to live by Christ's example?
>>915270
1 John 5:12 He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.
John 20:31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.
John 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
The pagan, and catholic, "Eat God, Be God" is the way you eat and drink condemnation to yourself.
The Spirit is Life. He who has the Spirit, has life.
>>915277
You're not even talking about the gospel. You're saying, 'we need to eat Jesus!'
Why are you so hung up on eating Jesus? Do you really want to be heaven when there'll be so many Protestants there?
>inb4 all Protestants go to hell
"Sorry, you can't get in! You didn't eat enough of me!"
>>915298
It's not ironic at all; it's just your delusion. You think Jesus came to show men how to live their lives. You think the Sermon on the Mount is a handbook for better living.
>>915255
Your explanation fails once again. It does not correspond to the reality of what Jesus had said. If he said that his flesh and blood is true food and true drink and use "alethes" to express this, it must by definition already entail some form of consumption of his flesh and blood taking place. If this is not so, the word would be pointless.
So it seems the Jesus you believe in is a liar who deliberately misleads others away from the truth. Who contradicts himself. After all, none of what you are even saying even relates to any actual eating of Christ. Such eating, only possible with a Realist view of the Eucharist.
Your god is a liar it seems.
>>915303
I'm saying exactly the opposite.
>>915310
I can't tell you the truth three times in a row and expect you to get it.
Jesus' body really was broken, like the bread really was broken.
Jesus' blood really was poured out, like the wine really was poured out.
And had He not done that, nobody would be saved; nobody would have life in them.
The Spirit gives life.
The Holy Spirit.
I can't remember if it was in this thread, or another, but at this time in Jesus' ministry, he was attracting huge crowds of people who wanted free food and drink. He had fed a multitude of people with a few loaves and fish.
And if you ever read the Grand Inquisitor, you would know why Jesus said He is the Bread, and He is the Wine, to discourage the exact type of behavior people looking for cheap thrills, miracles, and free food were congregating for.
Nobody ever ate Jesus.
Nobody ever drank His blood.
Your theology cannot handle that, because your theology is from the outside looking in. You do not understand the things of God.
>>915302
>1 John 5:12 He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.
indeed. In what way do you have the son, though? I know I have him each sunday whereby through faith he manifests himself in the mystery of the sacrament.
Consider that: I have the son, physically present as he said he would be. In what way does blasphemous memorialism have anything?
>John 20:31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.
Right, the purpose of the gospel of john is that you may believe christ and have salvation on his account.
If you believe christ, then why do you deny that those who don't eat the flesh and drink the blood of the son of man have no life in them?
>John 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
Yes, there's one god, but I fail to see relevance to our discussion of eucharistic theology here.
>catholic
Bitch please, I got 95 theses and a pope ain't one.
>>915363
You have the Son if the Son knows you, and the Son knows you if and only if you have the Holy Spirit of God in you. See, e.g., the parable of the ten bridesmaids.
If you had the Son, you would not need to repeat the rites and rituals of gaining the Son, as He would never leave you, nor forsake you.
If you knew you had forgiveness of sins, you would not continually ask God to forgive you of your sins.
If you were saved, you would know that you were saved, and how, and why, and by what means, and for how long.
You do not know any of that, because you are not saved.
The thief on the cross neither ate nor drank, yet he was saved by the same means everyone else is saved; by confessing with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and by believing in your heart God raised Him from the dead:
"Lord, remember me when You come into Your Kingdom."
That man was saved. No bread. No wine. No cannibalism. No vampirism.
>>915363
>Yes, there's one god, but I fail to see relevance to our discussion of eucharistic theology here.
Knowing Him = Eternal Life
>>915286
Ah, but that is not the full extent of your theology. You believe that God is a Father who is All-Loving. How can He love them, when casting them into the Fire?
But the Jews and the Christians say, "We are the children of Allah and His beloved." Say, "Then why does He punish you for your sins?" Rather, you are human beings from among those He has created. He forgives whom He wills, and He punishes whom He wills. And to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and whatever is between them, and to Him is the [final] destination. [al-Ma'idah 5:18]
>>915361
That isn't as in accordance to fact. Even the so called metaphor you attempt to use to get out of this problem fails miserably when nothing about eating or food is ever present.
But even then, if such is simply a metaphor, it no longer accords to fact and reality since a metaphor doesn't tell you what is going on. It simply compares it to another thing which is not it. This doesn't accord to reality at all. Same with your answer here.
So once more the consequence of your god being a deceitful liar who contradicted himself still stands.
Say all you want but from the very word of Christ himself, he certainly didn't say that it is a metaphor when he explicitly declares his flesh and blood to accord to the fact of them being food and drink.
The Greek lexacon shows this, I had even linked to it and cited the definition it provided.
Close your eyes all you want but as long as this remains, your god is simply no better than satan.
>>915396
Why do you think God is the Father of those He is casting into the fire?
Are they not the children of the devil himself?
>>915398
When Jesus wanted the Holy Spirit to enter into His disciples, He blew into their mouths.
He did not give them bread to eat, and wine to drink.
And then He told them to wait for the Holy Spirit to come down upon them in power, in flames.
Again, nothing about eating bread, and nothing about drinking wine.
I reiterate that I am telling you a higher truth, not a metaphor. Jesus is obviously speaking in metaphor. And just as obviously, Jesus is speaking quite literally, and turned the stomachs of the people listening to Him, so that they stopped following Him from then on.
You will not understand the things of God until you commit to God; until you are born again, and have the Holy Spirit of God instruct you in these things.
And when and if that happens, you will realize that Jesus is really spiritual food and drink, and that spiritual food and drink are far more important, and eternal, than physical food and drink.
God never lies; the devil lies, and blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is unpardonable.
>>915400
They're not children of God, nor the Devil. They're just the children of Adam. Some of them are good, some of them are bad.
And doesn't your Scripture indicate that God loves everyone?
>>915408
Once more you are not addressing the problem. Jesus wasn't being metaphorical in John 6 when he declares his flesh and blood to be true food and true drink that must be consumed to attain eternal life.
The Greek used in John 6:55 immediately discounts the use of metaphor here since metaphors don't show the truth as it is or as it accords to reality.
Given this by definition, Jesus is really saying one must somehow eat his flesh and drink his blood to attain eternal life. If not, he is lying or contradicting himself.
Every attempt of you to wiggle out of this simply fails flat time and time again. You claim that Jesus is speaking in metaphor in John 6, yet the original Greek Jesus had used in John 6:55 discounts this by definition.
There is really no way around this.
And because of it, your god lies. He is no better than the devil.
>>915412
Okay, let's agree to that. We are the children of Adam to start out with.
Genesis 1:27 [Full Chapter]
So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
Genesis 5:3 And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth.
Note how God made Adam in His image, full of the Holy Spirit of God, the Breath of Life, the Ruach Elohim, but that when Adam fell from grace, sinned, and died, he could only produce children in his own dead image.
Humanity was lost that day. Sin killed us all, and we were born dead, without hope of ever regaining the life that Adam was created with.
So had Jesus not done anything, all of humanity would have been born in Adam's dead image, and then died the second death in hell to pay for our sins in eternal torment.
There are no good people. There are no righteous people. Not when compared to God, Who is the standard.
That is the bad news. Because Adam sinned, all humanity is lost.
>>915430
Fourth time.
True spiritual food. True spiritual drink. Spiritual food and spiritual drink that must be ingested to provide life. You must have life re-introduced into you, to be born again in the Spirit, or your dead body will suffer the second death that is hell.
Life is in the Spirit. If you have not the Spirit, you have not Life.
You think like an animal, that there exists only physical food and physical drink. Stop thinking like an animal, and start thinking.
>>915372
>If you had the Son, you would not need to repeat the rites and rituals of gaining the Son, as He would never leave you, nor forsake you.
Christ said "do this"...so I do the rite. This is the nature of faith -- I trust christ, and so I do as he asks to the best of my ability.
>If you knew you had forgiveness of sins, you would not continually ask God to forgive you of your sins.
Christ says: "From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”" (matt. 4:17)
If I sin today, shall I go on without repenting as christ our lord commanded?
I know I have forgiveness, but christ commands repentance, and so I repent when needed.
>If you were saved, you would know that you were saved, and how, and why, and by what means, and for how long.
I'm saved by grace through faith apart from works of the law, for christ's sake alone, through the means of grace that is the word, which describes the use of the sacraments and their purpose.
>The thief on the cross neither ate nor drank
the theif on the cross was also an extreme situation wherein christ himself issued salvation to him in the flesh.
he presents no case for dispensing with the sacraments considering the multiple and aforementioned places where christ commands us to partake in them.
>>915383
>Knowing Him = Eternal Life
sure, and if you knew him, you'd know he said that those who don't eat his flesh and drink his blood have no life in them, so it's a rather moot point, wouldn't you say?
>>915440
Jesus said "Do this in remembrance of me." I do that in remembrance of Him.
You do that to be saved.
You do not understand that all sins were forgiven at the cross. Until you understand that, you will never be free. You will never live.
Jesus does not know what you're repenting of. Your sins are forgiven. Forgotten. Separated from you.
You only have 1 sin left, and that is Unbelief, and that is caused when you do not know that Jesus is Lord, cannot say it aloud, and do not know that God raised Him from the dead.
That Unbelief is the only sin left unforgiven, and it is unforgivable.
The thief on the cross was just a person who did and said what Paul would later write in Romans 10:9-10.
>>915438
But you don't even believe in eating Jesus in some way as he explicitly declares in John 6.
Your very explanation here does not match up to his declaration and hence the problem still stands. If any, the ones who accepted his statement stayed. The ones who could not handle it, left him.
And you are like the disciples who left, or Jesus was simply deceiving everyone by saying that.
Time and time again, you pathetically fail in solving the problem. The fact that Jesus used "alethes" means that he's being serious when saying that one must eat his flesh and drink his blood and how his flesh and blood are indeed in accordance to food and drink. Thus, by implication, he must mean that one must somehow consume him in the manner of eating and drinking.
>>915443
You know everything everybody you know ever said?
Yeah, I didn't think so.
If you knew Jesus, at all, you would not think (ever) that He told you to violate His law, to be a cannibal, and to be a vampire.
>>915408
the eucharist isn't the holy spirit...it's christ. you know, the second person of the trinity, not the 3rd?
so yeah, when christ gave the holy spirit, he gave...the holy spirit.
>God never lies; the devil lies, and blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is unpardonable.
yes, and do you know by what means the physical body and blood of christ are brought down into the elements of the sacrament by?
>the holy spirit
so if anyone here blasphemes, it's you...but we know that, as paul himself tells us you drink judgement on yourself for failing to discern the body of our lord when you eat and drink.
>>915459
Fifth time.
When I reached the age of accountability, sin arose and I died. When I confessed with my mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believed in my heart God raised Him from the dead, the Holy Spirit of God entered into my body, lives inside me, resurrected me to eternal life, and is transforming me into the image of Jesus. That's what He does, when you consent to the process.
From time to time, I will take bread, and eat it, and take wine, and drink it, and remember what Jesus did for me, and weep.
>>915461
Jesus rose bodily from the dead, and no, little chunks of Him are not being transposed around the earth.
>>915461
Like many of the beliefs and rites of Romanism, transubstantiation was first practiced by pagan religions. The noted historian Durant said that belief in transubstantiation as practiced by the priests of the Roman Catholic system is "one of the oldest ceremonies of primitive religion." The Story Of Civilization, p. 741. The syncretism and mysticism of the Middle East were great factors in influencing the West, particularly Italy. Roman Society From Nero To Marcus Aurelius, Dill. In Egypt priests would consecrate mest cakes which were supposed to be come the flesh of Osiris. Encyclopedia Of Religions, Vol. 2, p. 76. The idea of transubstantiation was also characteristic of the religion of Mithra whose sacraments of cakes and Haoma drink closely parallel the Catholic Eucharistic rite. Ibid. The idea of eating the flesh of deity was most popular among the people of Mexico and Central America long before they ever heard of Christ; and when Spanish missionaries first landed in those countries "their surprise was heightened, when they witnessed a religious rite which reminded them of communion...an image made of flour...and after consecration by priests, was distributed among the people who ate it...declaring it was the flesh of deity..." Prescott's Mexico, Vol. 3.
Eat God, Be God goes back to Babylon. It has nothing to do with Jesus.
>>915455
>Jesus does not know what you're repenting of. Your sins are forgiven. Forgotten. Separated from you.
yeah, this kind of antinomian idiocy is why I can't stomach your sort of backwoods religion.
sure, my sins are forgiven and I need not repent anymore, yeah? So imma go bang some whores and kill a few motherfuckers for the lulz, but it's ok, right? I don't need to repent of this at all...because my sins are forgiven.
>>915477
Is that your reaction to receiving the grace of God? A desire to be worse than you currently are?
