Jesus or Paul

7,189 Views | 246 Replies | Last: 8 yr ago by dog
Mrs. Lovelight
How long do you want to ignore this user?
k2aggie07 said:

I understand what you mean. But as a definition it's not very useful. Some Reformers couldn't even agree to what scriptures were actually scripture. Further when you have three or thirty denominations reading the same scriptures and coming up with different conclusions it's basically useless.

Do you think everything in my church isn't supportable by scripture?
Which Reformers weren't in agreement on which scriptures should have been canonized?

The number of denominations is irrelevant, most true churches agree on what constitutes the Gospel of Jesus Christ. There have always been sects and heretics since the very beginning of the church should we attribute them all as different sects of the Catholic Church? As to your church(?) I have no idea of the doctrinal standard of your church.
Faithful Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Daneeka said:

This is clearly symbolism. If it's not symbolic then how do you get the blood of Jesus each time you do communion... Does wine magically change to blood? Does the bread magically turn to flesh? Where is that doctrine in the bible?

If you take a literal interpretation then you have to literally eat his blood and flesh. Unless you do that then your doctrine is false.


So your defense is that because YOU don't understand how it can be accomplished, and YOU don't think Jesus meant what he said despite the text we have to read, that YOU think Jesus was only speaking symbolically....even though the same infallible Bible shows us in the plain text that PAUL believed and taught that the Eucharist was MORE than symbolic...that YOU must be the correct one because YOU are somehow smarter or have more insight than Paul??

Hmmmmmm....
Mrs. Lovelight
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm going to let Calvin do the heavy lifting here so here's a link. You can copy the parts you want to address and post your rebuttal to Calvin. Of the Lord's Supper Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin

I look forward to your response.
Doc Daneeka
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Faithful Ag said:

1. The disciples that were followers of Jesus that left him over this teaching clearly took his words as more than symbolic. Why?

2. Why didn't Jesus clarify his teachings to help them understand he wasn't talking literally? why did Jesus in fact do the exact opposite and make sure everyone understood that he meant exactly what he was saying?

3. Why did Paul's teachings to the Corinthians also speak of the Eucharist as something more than ordinary or symbolic?

4. You are looking at this topic through your modern, Protestant lens and you are flippantly dismissing a very important and foundational issue that can be seen woven throughout the Old and New Testaments.

5. You say you are sola scriptura and true to the Scriptures, and then presented with this very straightforward example you immediately make what you think as important as what St Paul thought as document in those scriptures. But you don't agree with what St. Paul taught. Can you see the problem here??
1'. how do you know that. lol.. and even if they did does that somehow make the statement not symbolic.. if i say to you im al pacino... and some people believe me... is that proof that im al pacino?

2'. Jesus wanted dedicated believers... he was not trying to be a salesman... he was not building an army ...

3'. it doesnt. please give specific verse though so i can explain it to you...

4'. You are blatantly believing symbology as a four year old would... you have reason... God gave it to us for a purpose...

5'. I dont follow your logic... but i will say that the onus is on you to prove that wine and bread turns into blood of jesus and body of jesus every communion... if you point that out in the bible... what verse this idea comes from.... I will believe you.
LGBFJB
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sorry. I don't have time to read your link. Take my post and change the YOU to CALVIN and my point remains.

If you'd like to make a specific point I'm glad to respond.
Doc Daneeka
How long do you want to ignore this user?
jkag89 said:

Doc Daneeka said:

The Filioque
Please explain how Orthodox repudiation of the Filioque shows how they do not believe Jesus is God and that they believe the Father is higher than Jesus.
If Jesus is God...

And the Holy Spirit is God...

And Father is God...

And then there is the Trinity..


How can the Holy spirit not "proceed" from Jesus but can from the Father.

IF the father has an attribute that the Son does not... Then the Son is not God by definition.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Luther argued against the deuterocanonical books, even though they had historically been considered scripture in various canons (including as recent as the Council of Ferrara-Florence, which included the East and the West). He also argued to remove Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the Bible. Melanchthon and others did not agree.

Calvin approved of the deuterocanonical books as ecclesiastical but not "to establish doctrine". But, he mentions Baruch as a prophet, references Baruch as scripture. He admits in his response to Trent that the findings of the Roman church that the other books were scripture was historical - "I am not, however, unaware that the same view on which the Fathers of Trent now insist was held in the Council of Carthage. The same, too, was followed by Augustine in his Treatise on Christian Doctrine."

Zwingli didn't like Revelation, but wasnt as bold as Luther to try to cut it out.

Muntzer basically said the Bible wasn't necessary and viewed the requirement to found theology in written scriptural "proof" with suspicion. "If someone had never had sight or sound of the Bible at any time in his life, he could still hold the one true Christian faith because of the true teaching of the spirit, just like all those who composed the holy Scripture without any books at all".
Doc Daneeka
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Daneeka said:

jkag89 said:

Doc Daneeka said:

The Filioque
Please explain how Orthodox repudiation of the Filioque shows how they do not believe Jesus is God and that they believe the Father is higher than Jesus.
If Jesus is God...

And the Holy Spirit is God...

And Father is God...

And then there is the Trinity..


How can the Holy spirit not "proceed" from Jesus but can from the Father.

IF the father has an attribute that the Son does not... Then the Son is not God by definition.
Even the catholics got this one right
Doc Daneeka
How long do you want to ignore this user?
k2aggie07 said:

Luther argued against the deuterocanonical books, even though they had historically been considered scripture in various canons (including as recent as the Council of Ferrara-Florence, which included the East and the West). He also argued to remove Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the Bible. Melanchthon and others did not agree.

Calvin approved of the deuterocanonical books as ecclesiastical but not "to establish doctrine". But, he mentions Baruch as a prophet, references Baruch as scripture. He admits in his response to Trent that the findings of the Roman church that the other books were scripture was historical - "I am not, however, unaware that the same view on which the Fathers of Trent now insist was held in the Council of Carthage. The same, too, was followed by Augustine in his Treatise on Christian Doctrine."

Zwingli didn't like Revelations, but wasnt as bold as Luther to try to cut it out.

Muntzer basically said the Bible wasn't necessary and viewed the requirement to found theology in written scriptural "proof" with suspicion. "If someone had never had sight or sound of the Bible at any time in his life, he could still hold the one true Christian faith because of the true teaching of the spirit, just like all those who composed the holy Scripture without any books at all".
no one worships luther
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oh, so either Jesus is the Father and the Father died on the cross or Jesus is not god? Hi Sabellianism.
Mrs. Lovelight
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Who are you? I was responding to Faithful Ag are you he? He asked this -

Quote:

So do we have a single Protestant out there that is willing to explain/defend your position on the Eucharist being merely symbolic based on John 6 and Paul's teachings to the Corinthians? Anyone?


He asked and I delivered...this.
Doc Daneeka
How long do you want to ignore this user?
k2aggie07 said:

Oh, so either Jesus is the Father and the Father died on the cross or Jesus is not god? Hi Sabellianism.
what? lol hahah can you read?
Mrs. Lovelight
How long do you want to ignore this user?
k2aggie07 said:

Luther argued against the deuterocanonical books, even though they had historically been considered scripture in various canons (including as recent as the Council of Ferrara-Florence, which included the East and the West). He also argued to remove Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the Bible. Melanchthon and others did not agree.

Calvin approved of the deuterocanonical books as ecclesiastical but not "to establish doctrine". But, he mentions Baruch as a prophet, references Baruch as scripture. He admits in his response to Trent that the findings of the Roman church that the other books were scripture was historical - "I am not, however, unaware that the same view on which the Fathers of Trent now insist was held in the Council of Carthage. The same, too, was followed by Augustine in his Treatise on Christian Doctrine."

Zwingli didn't like Revelations, but wasnt as bold as Luther to try to cut it out.

Muntzer basically said the Bible wasn't necessary and viewed the requirement to found theology in written scriptural "proof" with suspicion. "If someone had never had sight or sound of the Bible at any time in his life, he could still hold the one true Christian faith because of the true teaching of the spirit, just like all those who composed the holy Scripture without any books at all".
While Luther did take a look at not including those books they WERE added to his translation so your point is moot. ALSO, you have to consider the discovery of the error that Erasmus discovered made such a big impact that I think it was a natural response that everything was being reconsidered...but in the end most of it remained intact.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Talking to you is a waste of time, but the simplest answer is because Christ said the spirit proceeds from the father.

"When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me"
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You've moved the goalposts. You asked about the reformers competing views on canonicity within the larger umbrellas of sola scriptura. I gave you a sample. I'm aware of what the current Protestant canon contains.

Saying the canon is right because that's what in the canon is a special level of tautological.
Doc Daneeka
How long do you want to ignore this user?
k2aggie07 said:

Talking to you is a waste of time, but the simplest answer is because Christ said the spirit proceeds from the father.

"When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me"
So the Holy Spirit "CANT" come from Jesus... Or is he just describing events that will happen in that verse...
Doc Daneeka
How long do you want to ignore this user?
k2aggie07 said:

You've moved the goalposts. You asked about the reformers competing views on canonicity within the larger umbrellas of sola scriptura. I gave you a sample. I'm aware of what the current Protestant canon contains.

Saying the canon is right because that's what in the canon is a special level of tautological.
YOu literally do not know what current protestant canon contains lol
Doc Daneeka
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So does the father have an attribute the son cant have?
ScottishFire
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Have you read James 2?
It most certainly discerns beteeen these two. Or the parable of the sheep and the goats being separated at the end? "I never knew you. Depart from me you workers of lawlessness." They thought they had faith, but Christ tells them that knowing Him personally brings salvation. And this faith leads to "if you love me then you will keep my commandments." That last verse implies that works come out of love for Christ. And this only comes from true faith or 'sheep'...not false faith or 'goats".

Are you by chance a DTS theologian? Your interpretation of Scripture reminds me of their school of thought.
jkag89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Daneeka said:

jkag89 said:

Doc Daneeka said:

The Filioque
Please explain how Orthodox repudiation of the Filioque shows how they do not believe Jesus is God and that they believe the Father is higher than Jesus.
If Jesus is God...

And the Holy Spirit is God...

And Father is God...

And then there is the Trinity..


How can the Holy spirit not "proceed" from Jesus but can from the Father.

IF the father has an attribute that the Son does not... Then the Son is not God by definition.


So following that logic, did all Christians believe Christ was something less than the Father until the Filioque was added?
Doc Daneeka
How long do you want to ignore this user?
jkag89 said:

Doc Daneeka said:

jkag89 said:

Doc Daneeka said:

The Filioque
Please explain how Orthodox repudiation of the Filioque shows how they do not believe Jesus is God and that they believe the Father is higher than Jesus.
If Jesus is God...

And the Holy Spirit is God...

And Father is God...

And then there is the Trinity..


How can the Holy spirit not "proceed" from Jesus but can from the Father.

IF the father has an attribute that the Son does not... Then the Son is not God by definition.


So following that logic, did all Christians believe Christ was something less than the Father until the Filioque was added?
umm huh?

i think the more apparent answer is they realized their creed wasnt logically sound... and they fixed it lol...
jkag89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So it took them 700 or so years to realize this?
Mrs. Lovelight
How long do you want to ignore this user?
k2aggie07 said:

You've moved the goalposts. You asked about the reformers competing views on canonicity within the larger umbrellas of sola scriptura. I gave you a sample. I'm aware of what the current Protestant canon contains.

Saying the canon is right because that's what in the canon is a special level of tautological.
We'll I rejected your silly premise. You asked a question that made assumptions that were wrong. When your premise is rejected that's not moving the goalposts. Your distinction between Luther and Calvin approving or not approving the deuterocanonical is a distinction that does not matter. Calvin did not approve them as canonical, and neither did Luther, end of story. You try to make hay about Luther questioning certain canonical books (Jerome did too), he arrived that they were canonical and included them in his bible as canonical. End of story.
Doc Daneeka
How long do you want to ignore this user?
jkag89 said:

So it took them 700 or so years to realize this?
Umm yes...


it took catholics 1200 years to make up a silly doctrine called "transubstantiation"...

just to be logically consistent...



edit: catholics literally believe communion as the literal body and blood of christ... but the doctrine of transubstantiation was not instituted until 1215.. because some clever bishop realized the church folly and prolly said... "if we believe communion literally we need to come up with a doctrine to explain how we are still able to get jesus blood and jesus flesh..."
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I don't know what DTS is, but I specifically mentioned James 2. Your NIV translation is wrong, frankly. The word "that" is not in the Greek.

I could rewrite it but it's easier to just link.
http://epicpew.com/your-bible-probably-has-a-mistranslation-in-it/
jkag89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Daneeka said:

jkag89 said:

So it took them 700 or so years to realize this?
Umm yes...


it took catholics 1200 years to make up a silly doctrine called "transubstantiation"...

just to be logically consistent...



edit: catholics literally believe communion as the literal body and blood of christ... but the doctrine of transubstantiation was not instituted until 1215.. because some clever bishop realized the church folly and prolly said... "if we believe communion literally we need to come up with a doctrine to explain how we are still able to get jesus blood and jesus flesh..."
Why? Orthodox Christians have not bothered to do so.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Medieval Latin doctrine of transubstation and the real presence are not one and the same.

If you want to see a good discussion on this, here is a thread for you.
https://texags.com/forums/15/topics/2827612/1#discussion

Quoting from that thread
Since the "T" word was used, here is a list of terms used by church fathers and writers throughout the history of the Church to describe the change that takes place during the Mystery:

an anointing (chrisis Theodore of Mopsuestia, Catechetical Homily 16.12, ST 145, 553);
a becoming (genesis Serapion of Thmuis, "Prayer of the Offering," The Sacramentary of Serapion [Thessaloniki: 1967], 125);
a blessing (eulogia Divine Liturgy of Saint Basil the Great: "And bless [these Gifts] and sanctify them and show them to be);
a bringing into sight (hyp' opsin agoge Dionysios the Areopagite, De Ecclesiastica Hierarchia 3.3.2-13, PG 3, 444A-444C);
a completion (teleiosis Germanos of Constantinople, Historia Ecclesiastica, et Mystica Contemplatio PG 98, 437A);
a consecration (hierourga Gregory of Nyssa, In Baptismum Christi, PG 46, 581C);
a conversion (conversio Ambrose of Milan, De Sacramentis 4.5.23, SC 25, 114);
a divinization (theourgia Theodore the Studite, Epistolarum 2.203, PG 99, 1617C);
a descending upon/dwelling in (epidemia Serapion of Thmuis, "Prayer of the Offering," The Sacramentary of Serapion, 125);
an immixture (emmixis Eutychios of Constantinople, Sermo de Paschate et de Eucharistia 2, PG 86-2, 2393C);
a making (poiesis Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogiae 5.7, SC 126, 154);
a making-divine (theopoiesis Symeon the New Theologion, Ethical Discourses 3, SC 122, 428);
a manifestation (apophansis Irenaius of Lyons, Fragmenta 38, PG 7, 1253B);
a mutation (mutatio Ambrose of Milan, De Mysteriis 9.52 SC 25bis, 186);
a sanctification (hagiasmos Mark of Ephesus, De Corpore et Sanguine Christi, PG 160, 1080A);
a sending upon (katapempsis Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom);
a showing forth (anadeixis Basil the Great, De Spiritu Sancto 27.66, SC 17bis, 480);
a transelementation (metastoicheiosis Gregory of Nyssa, Oratio Catechetica 37, PG 45, 97B);
a transformation (metaskeue John of Damascus, Vita Barlaam et Joasaph, PG 96, 1032A);
a transmutation (metabole Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom; Theodoret of Cyr, Eranistes 1, PG 83, 56B);
a transorientation (metarrythmisis John Chrysostom, De Proditione Iudae 1.6, PG 49, 380);
a transubstantiation (metousiosis Gennadios Scholarios, De Sacramentali Corpore Christi 1, PG 160, 360C);
a transversion (metapoiesis Cyril of Alexandria, In Mattheum 26.27, PG 72, 452C);
a uniting (syzeuxis Samonas of Gaza, De Sacramento Altaris, PG 120, 829B);
a visitation (epiphoitesis John Chrysostom, On John 45.2, PG 59, 253).
ScottishFire
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You didn't read my post. I provided evidence outside of James (Matthew 25:31-46) to prove that Jesus revealed the church being full of saved and unsaved people--all of them thinking they were to enter heaven. Then be separates them and cast out those who knew him not. If someone thinks they're saved and finds out they aren't at the end, wouldn't that imply that their faith was misguided, false, and not saving

This idea is not new to James. It is seen in the OT with the Israelites and in the NT with the likes of Judas. Their lack of love for the Lord (which brings forth works) separated their faith from those who would actually enter eternity with Christ.
Doc Daneeka
How long do you want to ignore this user?
k2aggie07 said:

The Medieval Latin doctrine of transubstation and the real presence are not one and the same.

If you want to see a good discussion on this, here is a thread for you.
https://texags.com/forums/15/topics/2827612/1#discussion


Oh ... Interesting...

So you don't believe Jesus was being literal when referring to his body and blood?
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I think we're closer than you think.

The difference is that they simply don't have faith. Even Intellectual belief and faith aren't the same thing.

Making a this or that faith moves faith from the divine from God column into the from human column, which would seem suspiciously like pelagianism.

Edit - also there's not necessarily a reason to think the goats represent faithless people in the Church, though surely some will be. All will call Him Lord in those days - so their use of that title doesn't identify them as believers. All nations are being judged, so there will also be plain non believers. I think there will probably be people in the sheep who are not what you or I would see as Christians, but that's my opinion.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I don't believe that the doctrine of transsubstatition is what Jesus was talking about.

Metaphysical change is still real change.
Doc Daneeka
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So if you don't believe the literal communion.. Because you can't get Jesus' blood or body... And it's just about the presence of God... Which Protestants also believe... Is it required for salvation?
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It's not the vague "presence of God" (which not all Protestantbelieve, by the way).

It is his body, it is his blood. The prayer at the consecration of the elements says "make this bread the body of thy Christ and make this cup the blood of thy Christ; changing them by the Holy Spirit". Before communion we pray "I believe and I confess that this is truly thine own immaculate body and this is truly thine own immaculate blood..."

Why is the Protestant question "required for salvation"? Isn't it enough that He said it, and He said to do it?

Do you only do the bare minimum to keep yourself alive? Bread and salt and water? Why do you bring a minimalist approach to the faith?
Doc Daneeka
How long do you want to ignore this user?
k2aggie07 said:

It's not the vague "presence of God" (which not all Protestantbelieve, by the way).

It is his body, it is his blood. The prayer at the consecration of the elements says "make this bread the body of thy Christ and make this cup the blood of thy Christ; changing them by the Holy Spirit". Before communion we pray "I believe and I confess that this is truly thine own immaculate body and this is truly thine own immaculate blood..."

Why is the Protestant question "required for salvation"? Isn't it enough that He said it, and He said to do it?

Do you only do the bare minimum to keep yourself alive? Bread and salt and water? Why do you bring a minimalist approach to the faith?



Lol... Not the vague presence of God? What does that mean ... Lol ... Communion is either literal or not... If you believe communion is literal then you are not eating the flesh of Christ without transubstantiation...

then you believe its symbolic...

It would be eerily peculiar if the presence of God merely arrived at the bodily movements of humans in a certain way...

Or is it the mind set that matters...and if it's the mind set that matters then communion is just merely a tool to use to invoke that mindset...
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It really is a waste of time discussing this with you if you can't imagine that something metaphysical can still be real.

There's nothing less real about metaphysical things than physical things.

Until you can manage to grasp that, I'm really not interested in a facile and shallow discussion.

PS transsubstantiation does not mean that bread turns into flesh in a physical way.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.