Christian Discussion Thread IV

[Benuty]

The more I study ancient Isrealite culture, the more I find Protestantism to be Problematic.

Well, there's no sense arguing that only Protestantism is problematic.

Chalcedonian Christianity is the problem, having been tampered with by secular forces just as Protestantism did.

Source?

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Studying the Sacrificial system of Israelites has helped my understand the importance of the Eucharist as more than just a symbolic ritual. This is problematic with protestantism.

[Chelta]

Studying the Sacrificial system of Israelites has helped my understand the importance of the Eucharist as more than just a symbolic ritual. This is problematic with protestantism.

Some types of Protestantism... not all Protestant denominations believe the Eucharist is just a memorial.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Studying the Sacrificial system of Israelites has helped my understand the importance of the Eucharist as more than just a symbolic ritual. This is problematic with protestantism.

Some types of Protestantism... not all Protestant denominations believe the Eucharist is just a memorial.

And they're uneducated and wrong. They simply take the the Word, applying their own modern understanding, and not what the Word meant at the time it was written. In essence, it becomes clear the Sola Scriptura is a fallacy. The Word was written with specific intent and meaning, that has been handed down via Tradition, and rediscovered through anthropology and archeology.

[Chelta]

Some types of Protestantism... not all Protestant denominations believe the Eucharist is just a memorial.

And they're uneducated and wrong. They simply take the the Word, applying their own modern understanding, and not what the Word meant at the time it was written. In essence, it becomes clear the Sola Scriptura is a fallacy. The Word was written with specific intent and meaning, that has been handed down via Tradition, and rediscovered through anthropology and archeology.

I know, I was just reminding that you can't lump all Protestants together. Protestants don't all believe the same things.

[Neoconstantius]

Some types of Protestantism... not all Protestant denominations believe the Eucharist is just a memorial.

And they're uneducated and wrong. They simply take the the Word, applying their own modern understanding, and not what the Word meant at the time it was written. In essence, it becomes clear the Sola Scriptura is a fallacy. The Word was written with specific intent and meaning, that has been handed down via Tradition, and rediscovered through anthropology and archeology.

You should talk to Distruzio

[Ryfylke]

Some types of Protestantism... not all Protestant denominations believe the Eucharist is just a memorial.

And they're uneducated and wrong. They simply take the the Word, applying their own modern understanding, and not what the Word meant at the time it was written. In essence, it becomes clear the Sola Scriptura is a fallacy. The Word was written with specific intent and meaning, that has been handed down via Tradition, and rediscovered through anthropology and archeology.

Sola scriptura as a means of formulating doctrine is neither opposed to understanding the context of the Word nor the use of critical methods to help identify that context. In its original form, sola scriptura was a means of returning to that original intent of the church fathers in the face of human institutions that had corrupted the Church. This discontinuity in your post here:

handed down via Tradition, and rediscovered

is why sola scriptura became a necessary part of Reformation theology: you clearly (and, in my opinion, correctly) identify that tradition couldn't properly maintain specific intent and meaning.

Biblical literalism and the various other types of methodological silliness that sprung up later in the Reformation are not inherent aspects of sola scriptura, but rather are perversions of Hus and Luther. Both figures spent most of their careers in academia and would never be so absurdly anti-intellectual as to say that the Bible was literally the word of God and should be taken without context. Within the overarching category of Protestantism, you'll find a number of denominations (most in the mainline, but a select few outside it) that rely on scripture but are willing (and even eager) to recognize its imperfection and the need for critical methods to discern the true meaning of its authors.

Proper use of sola scriptura is better though of in terms of historiography. When studying events that took place far in the past, you wouldn't rely on centuries' worth of secondary sources to understand the events and mentality of the period you're studying: As the years go by, history with only secondary sources becomes clouded by compounding error. Primary sources are necessary if you want an unfiltered look at the subjects you're studying. Of course, that doesn't mean we throw out secondary sources - they play an important role in contextualizing and clarifying your primary sources, just as the Church's trained theologians can assist laypeople in a more nuanced understanding of scripture. However, when discerning what the people of ages past truly thought, it's those primary sources that do the heavy lifting, since we as historians don't trust secondary sources that don't have primary sources to back them up.

So essentially, if our goal is to identify and sustain the theology of the early Church, the writings the Church fathers chose to include in the Bible should be our guide to determining how they thought, with the assistance of historical-critical methods. The Church has a role to play too, in its clarification of the Word: No one person has the sort of contextual background to thoroughly analyze all scripture, so we should absolutely use its two millennia of experience in the matter - we just need to be sure it isn't veering wildly from our primary sources. Personally, I don't see how any method besides sola scriptura (the proper kind) recognizes that truth that scripture is a primary source while tradition and the like are fundamentally secondary sources, and are, as such, subject to the criticism of the primary source.

Of course, this entire post is predicated on the assumption that folks want to maintain the theology of the early Church and are willing to use academic methods to get there. There certainly plenty of Christians who would say no on one or both counts.

[Distruzio]

And they're uneducated and wrong. They simply take the the Word, applying their own modern understanding, and not what the Word meant at the time it was written. In essence, it becomes clear the Sola Scriptura is a fallacy. The Word was written with specific intent and meaning, that has been handed down via Tradition, and rediscovered through anthropology and archeology.

You should talk to Distruzio

We talk often enough. He thinks I go too far with my reasoning. Our critiques of Protestantism as a part of Christianity are well known and hardly our own. I merely take what I was taught, what I observe, and, as far as TS is concerned, go a bit too far.

[Distruzio]

Studying the Sacrificial system of Israelites has helped my understand the importance of the Eucharist as more than just a symbolic ritual. This is problematic with protestantism.

Indeed. Conversations with Menassa helped clarify my appreciation of our holiest of traditions.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

You should talk to Distruzio

We talk often enough. He thinks I go too far with my reasoning. Our critiques of Protestantism as a part of Christianity are well known and hardly our own. I merely take what I was taught, what I observe, and, as far as TS is concerned, go a bit too far.

Though, I do understand your reasoning much better now, as a result of my studies as well.

[Calimera II]

Do you guys believe that Israel should have, well Israel because of what is written in the bible? Just wondering.

[Bunkeranlage]

Do you guys believe that Israel should have, well Israel because of what is written in the bible? Just wondering.

Could you rephrase, please?

[Calimera II]

Do you guys believe that Israel should have, well Israel because of what is written in the bible? Just wondering.

Could you rephrase, please?

O, that was badly written. I am sorry.

Let me rephrase:
Do you believe that Jews have right to their own state called Israel (the land of jews) because of what is written in the bible?

[Benuty]

Could you rephrase, please?

O, that was badly written. I am sorry.

Let me rephrase:
Do you believe that Jews have right to their own state called Israel (the land of jews) because of what is written in the bible?

History certainly says they deserve a homeland yet the modern country of Israel cannot claim to be the successor of the biblical one since it denies rights to the "foreign ones upon your gates", and those who are living within the land as they have been for centuries.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Could you rephrase, please?

O, that was badly written. I am sorry.

Let me rephrase:
Do you believe that Jews have right to their own state called Israel (the land of jews) because of what is written in the bible?

There's other sources than the Bible that support the claim. For instance we know a semetic tribe existed in Egypt co-opting hieroglyphics into a phonetic language. We know that same tribe invaded the kingdom of Canaan, stamping out the Canaan pantheon, replacing it with the cult of YHWH, establishing Israel.

[Benuty]

O, that was badly written. I am sorry.

Let me rephrase:
Do you believe that Jews have right to their own state called Israel (the land of jews) because of what is written in the bible?

There's other sources than the Bible that support the claim. For instance we know a semetic tribe existed in Egypt co-opting hieroglyphics into a phonetic language. We know that same tribe invaded the kingdom of Canaan, stamping out the Canaan pantheon, replacing it with the cult of YHWH, establishing Israel.

They certainly tried to, albeit the Ancient Israelites were a treasure trove of belief systems. Given the conflict between the Polytheist and Yahweist factions. On top of it they had to deal with the rising of Monolatrist religious factions as well [which had their share of domination especially in the Northern Kingdom of Israel].

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

So yeah, Christianity, is the Body and Blood of Christ really present in the Eucharist, and, if so, how?

[Tarsonis Survivors]

There's other sources than the Bible that support the claim. For instance we know a semetic tribe existed in Egypt co-opting hieroglyphics into a phonetic language. We know that same tribe invaded the kingdom of Canaan, stamping out the Canaan pantheon, replacing it with the cult of YHWH, establishing Israel.

They certainly tried to, albeit the Ancient Israelites were a treasure trove of belief systems. Given the conflict between the Polytheist and Yahweist factions. On top of it they had to deal with the rising of Monolatrist religious factions as well [which had their share of domination especially in the Northern Kingdom of Israel].

They really weren't though. They adapted aspects of the surrounding societies. They did a fair job eliminating polytheism during the monarchist era, but I mean the Cannanite Pantheon was the precurser to the Greeks. Israel never went that far, plus they we're conquered frequently.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

So yeah, Christianity, is the Body and Blood of Christ really present in the Eucharist, and, if so, how?

First you must understand the Israelite sacrificial system. Sacrifices were killed and a priest or the sacrificer (depending in the type of sacrifice) would eat a piece of the flesh, and the blood was sprinkled on things to cleanse them of blemish.


When Christ was establishing the Eucharist, he drew from the system. You are cleansed when you consume the flesh of the sacrifice, and by drinking the blood. Once the Eucharist is consecrated, it is symbolic, but for all intents and purposes the real deal.

[Angleter]

So yeah, Christianity, is the Body and Blood of Christ really present in the Eucharist, and, if so, how?

Yes. As Tarsonis said, it's the continuation of Jewish sacrifice - the Lamb of God has superseded the actual lamb sacrificed in the old Jewish Temple, and his sacrifice on the Cross is re-presented* in the Eucharist. Though the 'accident' of the bread and wine remains - it looks like bread/wine, quacks like bread/wine, comes out as bread/wine under empirical scientific testing, etc. - the 'substance' becomes the Body and Blood of Christ. Of course it doesn't make any empirical scientific sense, but neither do the virgin birth, the resurrection, the ascension, etc.

*One of those cases of clumsy-but-necessary uber-specific theological language. A 're-presentation' is not a 'representation', a symbolic imitation, but The Real Thing; but at the same time it is not a 're-sacrifice', where Christ is sacrificed over and over again every time a Host is consecrated. Rather, the eternal sacrifice of Christ, which physically happened the best part of 2000 years ago, is being applied each time a Host is consecrated. Rather like how Protestants say they were 'saved' or 'born again' (through Christ's sacrifice on the Cross, of course) in 1995 or whenever when the sacrifice physically happened a few decades into the 1st century.

[Angleter]

Could you rephrase, please?

O, that was badly written. I am sorry.

Let me rephrase:
Do you believe that Jews have right to their own state called Israel (the land of jews) because of what is written in the bible?

No. The Israel of the Covenant, to which the Holy Land was promised and a Monarchy and a priesthood was given, is no longer the Jewish nation, but rather the Church. Christ is its King and its High Priest, its rank-and-file priesthood exist on Earth, and its territorial patrimony is the whole of Creation, which it shall inherit on the Last Day.

I do, however, support Israel for secular reasons.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

So yeah, Christianity, is the Body and Blood of Christ really present in the Eucharist, and, if so, how?

Yes. As Tarsonis said, it's the continuation of Jewish sacrifice - the Lamb of God has superseded the actual lamb sacrificed in the old Jewish Temple, and his sacrifice on the Cross is re-presented* in the Eucharist. Though the 'accident' of the bread and wine remains - it looks like bread/wine, quacks like bread/wine, comes out as bread/wine under empirical scientific testing, etc. - the 'substance' becomes the Body and Blood of Christ. Of course it doesn't make any empirical scientific sense, but neither do the virgin birth, the resurrection, the ascension, etc.

*One of those cases of clumsy-but-necessary uber-specific theological language. A 're-presentation' is not a 'representation', a symbolic imitation, but The Real Thing; but at the same time it is not a 're-sacrifice', where Christ is sacrificed over and over again every time a Host is consecrated. Rather, the eternal sacrifice of Christ, which physically happened the best part of 2000 years ago, is being applied each time a Host is consecrated. Rather like how Protestants say they were 'saved' or 'born again' (through Christ's sacrifice on the Cross, of course) in 1995 or whenever when the sacrifice physically happened a few decades into the 1st century.

Thanks for that clarification. I often overlook that important piece of pedantry.

[Benuty]

O, that was badly written. I am sorry.

Let me rephrase:
Do you believe that Jews have right to their own state called Israel (the land of jews) because of what is written in the bible?

No. The Israel of the Covenant, to which the Holy Land was promised and a Monarchy and a priesthood was given, is no longer the Jewish nation, but rather the Church. Christ is its King and its High Priest, its rank-and-file priesthood exist on Earth, and its territorial patrimony is the whole of Creation, which it shall inherit on the Last Day.

I do, however, support Israel for secular reasons.

So does it supersede the two very different covenants branches within the "Old Testament"?

[Menassa]

No. The Israel of the Covenant, to which the Holy Land was promised and a Monarchy and a priesthood was given, is no longer the Jewish nation, but rather the Church. Christ is its King and its High Priest, its rank-and-file priesthood exist on Earth, and its territorial patrimony is the whole of Creation, which it shall inherit on the Last Day.

I do, however, support Israel for secular reasons.

So does it supersede the two very different covenants branches within the "Old Testament"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersessionism

[Benuty]

So does it supersede the two very different covenants branches within the "Old Testament"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersessionism

Ugh...that old thing. Isn't that a dying view anyway?