I think we have a disagreement on that fundamentally. Just like in politics, corruption and detachment scales with the level of disconnect from the basic building block of the structure (the individual). There must be a shepherd for the flock, but above that it becomes dangerous for the same reasons it is dangerous politically to assign responsibility more than the bare minimum to the federal government. Human tendencies and incentives do not go away just because they run an organization that is a Denomination or sect, the only difference is the measurement of failure is in souls, not in economic activity. Again, I am not saying it shouldn't exist, I am saying it should be minimal.

congrats, you have the same understanding of proper ecclesiology as the Orthodox.

Zobel said:

---

congrats, you have the same understanding of proper ecclesiology as the Orthodox.

---

And I could say you're now a Baptist

Baptists have no bishop and do not practice the Eucharist. As my Scottish friends would say they're as different as chalk and cheese.

Zobel said:

---

Baptists have no bishop and do not practice the Eucharist. As my Scottish friends would say they're as different as chalk and cheese.

---

We perform Communion the first Sunday every month, and we have a spiritual leadership training and mentoring for leadership for internal and external service ... so... not as chalky and cheesy as you'd like to think

I know we are apart on this, but this is really where the rubber meets the road, and yes... these irreconcilably different. Not the same ballpark, not the same league, not even the same sport.

You do not follow the ordination practices we do. You have no apostolic succession. You do not recognize the office of the bishop. You have "pastors" or perhaps "elders" and deacons, but they do not serve any sacramental role. You don't believe ordination is a means of grace, or at least most baptists do not teach this. By your own confession, your pastors are not bishops.

You don't believe that the Eucharist is the body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the means of receiving grace par excellence. The Eucharist is the actual purpose, mode, and means of our worship. By your own confession, your communion is not the Eucharist.

Forgive me.

We are apart on that, it is true. But I know that we both believe that we received grace through the body and blood of Christ. I just believe that it happened once and that was enough for all time and "remembrance" is just that. I don't see our differences in observance as being something that separates us from being the Bride of Christ.

Right. But I do.

Total aside, every nun I had from pre-k to senior year of high school was very masculine in all the wrong ways lol.

Fair enough. I know plenty who would exclude the Eucharist from salvation as well, so I get it. I would caution that we like to create rules for God to follow rather than the other way around. We are taught that it is not the law, but the purpose of the law (our relationship with the Father made possible through the Son) that is what God cares about.

God bless and have a good evening!

Not sure when y'all are going to figure out that Zobel and The Banned believe every Protestant church is apostate.

Y'all talking to brick walls.

And I do not want to live under an Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, Communist, or any other type of tyrannical gov't dictating everything I am allowed to do, every day.

I didn't say anything about salvation. I said that puts you outside the church, because the church is formed by and through the Eucharist - "because there is one loaf, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one loaf."

The fact that the church consists of the bishop and the laity is because without both the bishop and the laity you cannot celebrate the Eucharist.

Without the Eucharist, what you're doing has no fundamental relationship with the Lord's Day worship of the Apostolic Church, or any other Christian practice until the Reformation. It sucks, but that is the line.

Swing and a miss.

Ironically, I would use that exact verse against your argument

Zobel said:

---

Swing and a miss.

---

Go back and read your own freaking posts. You're very clear that anything outside of Orthodox, Catholic okay, is not The Church.

Doesn't make you an apostate homie.

Well, we don't have the same loaf. That's what not being in communion means.

Zobel said:

---

Doesn't make you an apostate homie.

---

It was easier to just post a pic. Not sure if it will post above or below the text.

You have multiple times implied that all Protestants left the Church. Couple that with definition provided.

Aka, Protestant churches are apostate.

CDUB98 said:

---

Not sure when y'all are going to figure out that Zobel and The Banned believe every Protestant church is apostate.

Y'all talking to brick walls.

---

I don't think they believe they are apostate, rather they believe they are heretical. The former is not-Christian, the latter is still Christian.

I've spoken to many Catholics and Orthodox with similar beliefs. It doesn't bother me despite being a Baptist myself so long as they don't call me a non-Christian.

I am fine with being heretical to them because I believe they are the same to me but I don't bring that up because it doesn't do any good and doesn't help anything. That level of vitriol is both unproductive and divisive when it comes to further the aims of general Christendom's battle against Satanic subversion.

We have far more common ground that not and I can focus on that.

CDUB98 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Doesn't make you an apostate homie.

---

It was easier to just post a pic. Not sure if it will post above or below the text.

You have multiple times implied that all Protestants left the Church. Couple that with definition provided.

Aka, Protestant churches are apostate.

---

People use apostate and heretical as synonyms, but they aren't. The former is an actual false prophet and an enemy of God, while the latter is just a person who holds irreconcilable doctrinal differences but is still a Christian.

A good comparison of the difference here is Catholic vs Mormon and Catholic vs Baptist. Mormons are apostate while Baptists are heretical. Does this make sense?

You can't abandon what you were never a part of. The only way for a person to be an apostate from Orthodoxy is if they were Orthodox and then renounced their faith and left. Don't think we have any of those on here.

And I don't even think yall are heretics. I think the original reformers were, but yall grew up in this tradition and most people have no idea what Orthodoxy is or teaches. Most of y'all think we're Roman Catholic.

Y'all are just heterodox, you and the RCC together.

Nanomachines son said:

---

Zobel said:

---

I'm not arguing with you that Marxism is bad or that we are seeing the results of immigration changing our population and culture. No objection here.

But I think you've misunderstood my argument about America's place in the chain of progressivism. Conservatism is it seeks to conserve what it inherits, Progressivism seeks to change to a better world (in their definition). Since progressivism always has made progress, conservatism's inheritance from generation to generation always moves with progressivism - only at a delay. Today's conservatives are yesterday's progressives.

This is as true with religion (compare a non-denom today to first generation reformers!) as it is with politics (compare today's reality of the US government with the early days of the constitution with regard to suffrage, structure of the federal government, etc) as it is with social issues (compare public opinion on divorce, gay marriage, pornography).

In this paradigm the Reformation was a progressive movement. It sought the better - in their definition - and tore down the old structures of both government and religion to get there. That train runs right through the US. The Boston mob in 1770 or 1773 was much closer to the modern BLM movement than the modern Tea Party.

Its easy for us to point to conservatives and progressives today and correctly label the progressives as bad and pushing too far. It's a bit more difficult to look back and do the same, because yesterday's progressives are much more likely to have values that align with our own.

So... who were the progressives of 1776? or 1517? That's what I'm getting at.

---

The US is more religious than all of Eastern Europe, which are Orthodox, by every metric and they were unaffected by the Reformation. They were however, ruined by Marxism, the same as us.

Also, you should go back much further than 1517. The origins of all of our issues are from the creation of the Talmud in 300 AD to 500 AD. This is the origin of Marxism.

---

Can you explain the 300 date -- - isn't the Jamnia Council setting up the Rabbinic variant in 82 AD and much earlier ---- Dennis Prager (or Mark Levin) have confirmed that Marxism comes from lapsed Jewish strain -- they consider the secular variety very prone to regression because are distorting the engraved call to the divine. But your date range is interesting.

Zobel said:

---

You can't abandon what you were never a part of. The only way for a person to be an apostate from Orthodoxy is if they were Orthodox and then renounced their faith and left. Don't think we have any of those on here.

And I don't even think yall are heretics. I think the original reformers were, but yall grew up in this tradition and most people have no idea what Orthodoxy is or teaches. Most of y'all think we're Roman Catholic.

Y'all are just heterodox, you and the RCC together.

---

Question for you: when you say renounce the faith do you mean Orthodox specifically or Christianity? What happens if an Orthodox begins going to a Protestant church?

I dunno. I suppose there are degrees to apostasy. It's obviously worse to become a satanist than to become Baptist. But I'd say both are suboptimal. Not really something I spend a lot of time worrying about.

titan said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Zobel said:

---

I'm not arguing with you that Marxism is bad or that we are seeing the results of immigration changing our population and culture. No objection here.

But I think you've misunderstood my argument about America's place in the chain of progressivism. Conservatism is it seeks to conserve what it inherits, Progressivism seeks to change to a better world (in their definition). Since progressivism always has made progress, conservatism's inheritance from generation to generation always moves with progressivism - only at a delay. Today's conservatives are yesterday's progressives.

This is as true with religion (compare a non-denom today to first generation reformers!) as it is with politics (compare today's reality of the US government with the early days of the constitution with regard to suffrage, structure of the federal government, etc) as it is with social issues (compare public opinion on divorce, gay marriage, pornography).

In this paradigm the Reformation was a progressive movement. It sought the better - in their definition - and tore down the old structures of both government and religion to get there. That train runs right through the US. The Boston mob in 1770 or 1773 was much closer to the modern BLM movement than the modern Tea Party.

Its easy for us to point to conservatives and progressives today and correctly label the progressives as bad and pushing too far. It's a bit more difficult to look back and do the same, because yesterday's progressives are much more likely to have values that align with our own.

So... who were the progressives of 1776? or 1517? That's what I'm getting at.

---

The US is more religious than all of Eastern Europe, which are Orthodox, by every metric and they were unaffected by the Reformation. They were however, ruined by Marxism, the same as us.

Also, you should go back much further than 1517. The origins of all of our issues are from the creation of the Talmud in 300 AD to 500 AD. This is the origin of Marxism.

---

Can you explain the 300 date -- - isn't the Jamnia Council setting up the Rabbinic variant in 82 AD and much earlier ---- Dennis Prager (or Mark Levin) have confirmed that Marxism comes from lapsed Jewish strain -- they consider the secular variety very prone to regression because are distorting the engraved call to the divine. But your date range is interesting.

---

https://www.jhi.pl/en/articles/a-way-of-life-why-is-the-talmud-important-to-jews,4785#:~:text=The%20Talmud%20is%20written%20in,consequence%2C%20for%20centuries%20studied%20less

Quote:

---

The Talmud is written in Hebrew and Aramaic, and exists in two versions: the vastly studied Babylonian Talmud, compiled by scholars in Mesopotamia (Babylonia) around 500 CE, as well as the Jerusalem Talmud, compiled earlier, around 400 CE, but much shorter, incomplete and in consequence, for centuries studied less frequently. Usually, 'the Talmud' refers to the Babylonian Talmud.

---

I have heard 300 for the Jersusalem Talmud as well.

Zobel said:

---

I dunno. I suppose there are degrees to apostasy. It's obviously worse to become a satanist than to become Baptist. But I'd say both are suboptimal. Not really something I spend a lot of time worrying about.

---

What if you never denounced your faith and just begin attending a Protestant church?

Not trying to make a point here but I am genuinely curious about the process.

I don't know. Not sure why someone would, maybe they like the music or the Christmas play? There's nothing wrong with hanging out in a Baptist church or going to their bible study. We don't do shunning. Shouldn't take communion at places we're not in communion with, but other than that? Again, not something I think about.

Zobel said:

---

Well, we don't have the same loaf. That's what not being in communion means.

---

Pretty sure that is the opposite of what the verse actually says

Nanomachines son said:

---

titan said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Zobel said:

---

I'm not arguing with you that Marxism is bad or that we are seeing the results of immigration changing our population and culture. No objection here.

But I think you've misunderstood my argument about America's place in the chain of progressivism. Conservatism is it seeks to conserve what it inherits, Progressivism seeks to change to a better world (in their definition). Since progressivism always has made progress, conservatism's inheritance from generation to generation always moves with progressivism - only at a delay. Today's conservatives are yesterday's progressives.

This is as true with religion (compare a non-denom today to first generation reformers!) as it is with politics (compare today's reality of the US government with the early days of the constitution with regard to suffrage, structure of the federal government, etc) as it is with social issues (compare public opinion on divorce, gay marriage, pornography).

In this paradigm the Reformation was a progressive movement. It sought the better - in their definition - and tore down the old structures of both government and religion to get there. That train runs right through the US. The Boston mob in 1770 or 1773 was much closer to the modern BLM movement than the modern Tea Party.

Its easy for us to point to conservatives and progressives today and correctly label the progressives as bad and pushing too far. It's a bit more difficult to look back and do the same, because yesterday's progressives are much more likely to have values that align with our own.

So... who were the progressives of 1776? or 1517? That's what I'm getting at.

---

The US is more religious than all of Eastern Europe, which are Orthodox, by every metric and they were unaffected by the Reformation. They were however, ruined by Marxism, the same as us.

Also, you should go back much further than 1517. The origins of all of our issues are from the creation of the Talmud in 300 AD to 500 AD. This is the origin of Marxism.

---

Can you explain the 300 date -- - isn't the Jamnia Council setting up the Rabbinic variant in 82 AD and much earlier ---- Dennis Prager (or Mark Levin) have confirmed that Marxism comes from lapsed Jewish strain -- they consider the secular variety very prone to regression because are distorting the engraved call to the divine. But your date range is interesting.

---

https://www.jhi.pl/en/articles/a-way-of-life-why-is-the-talmud-important-to-jews,4785#:~:text=The%20Talmud%20is%20written%20in,consequence%2C%20for%20centuries%20studied%20less

Quote:

---

The Talmud is written in Hebrew and Aramaic, and exists in two versions: the vastly studied Babylonian Talmud, compiled by scholars in Mesopotamia (Babylonia) around 500 CE, as well as the Jerusalem Talmud, compiled earlier, around 400 CE, but much shorter, incomplete and in consequence, for centuries studied less frequently. Usually, 'the Talmud' refers to the Babylonian Talmud.

---

I have heard 300 for the Jersusalem Talmud as well.

---

Thanks! This explains the usage very well. I was thinking of the date of some of the content, whereas the 300-500 (or 400-500) range refers to when compiled, when set down --when oral was written. Some of the early equivalent of anathemas against what would become Christianity are set around the turn of the 2nd century -- and it really picks up after 117 and then the Bar Kochba revolt in the 130s.

We don't share one loaf.

Sorry it occurred to me maybe you don't know our understanding. We say it's the same bread because it is the body of the Lord. If it wasn't, it would be pretty obviously different loafs of bread. (Or crackers, as the case is in some Baptist churches). It isn't the same loaf until it becomes the Body of the Lord. Eating it unites us to Him, and in Him, to each other. If you don't believe it truly becomes the Body, your bread and my bread are not the same loaf.

Zobel said:

---

We don't share one loaf.

Sorry it occurred to me maybe you don't know our understanding. We say it's the same bread because it is the body of the Lord. If it wasn't, it would be pretty obviously different loafs of bread. (Or crackers, as the case is in some Baptist churches). It isn't the same loaf until it becomes the Body of the Lord. Eating it unites us to Him, and in Him, to each other. If you don't believe it truly becomes the Body, your bread and my bread are not the same loaf.

---

I do know your understanding, but there is a distinct lack of qualifications in the verse. It is a statement of fact. I even find the phrase "unless you guys don't have a Bishop" conspicuous in its absence

If we're going raw literal then it's literally not the same loaf of bread in any sense at all.

Sorry I mean, episcopos is in the scriptures. The three fold clergy is a historical fact in the church. Shrug.

This is why we aren't in communion. Whatever it is you're doing is so far removed from us we can't say it's the same… no matter how much you insist it is. We aren't doing the same stuff, we don't believe the same stuff about the stuff we both do. There's real differences. The least common denominator doesn't define the faith.

Zobel said:

---

If we're going raw literal then it's literally not the same loaf of bread in any sense at all.

Sorry I mean, episcopos is in the scriptures. The three fold clergy is a historical fact in the church. Shrug.

This is why we aren't in communion. Whatever it is you're doing is so far removed from us we can't say it's the same… no matter how much you insist it is. We aren't doing the same stuff, we don't believe the same stuff about the stuff we both do. There's real differences. The least common denominator doesn't define the faith.

---

It wasn't raw literal in the verse. They weren't in the same place or he wouldn' be writing a letter, so it couldn't have been the literal same loaf. Besides, it was originally the passover meal, so it would have been the unleavened bread and wine of the yearly passover sedar, which itself was a representative meal of the blood of an unblemished lamb over the doors of the Hebrew slaves in Egypt that saved the lives of their firstborn. I do understand there are significant differences between our observances, but also that we may not be apart in faith in the eyes of God.
.

Anyway this isn't relevant to politics. To bring it back: conservatism is a lost cause. We need to be reactionary.