The New Testament tells Christians that eating blood is prohibited (Acts 15:29). This is not just a carry-over from Mosaic Law, but an article of Noahide Law (Genesis 9:4). Roman Catholics say that this prohibition ceased after that Apostolic Age, and was only discipline, but the Orthodox say it did not. The burden of proof is on the RCC to show that it did cease, and considering it is part of the NEW covenant, this assertion is rather questionable.
This might seem like a pointless law, and void due to Christ saying all animals are clean. But it's not. The reason that this is serious is because when you have blood with flesh, you are partaking of COMMUNION with the animal. Communion is only to be taken with the Body of Christ.
>you are partaking of COMMUNION with the animal. Communion is only to be taken with the Body of Christ. kek. but the flesh of christ is a part of the ritual of communion, not something that goes with it. regardless it's a silly argument. only reason you can't drink blood is that it has magic juju reserved for use by god
Lincoln Hill
>Bible if full of shit Breaking news for sure.
Thomas Hill
Both the Body and Blood of Christ are required. The RCC forbid the laypeople from partaking of it for several hundred years (on the grounds that the bread was both the Body and Blood, and the wine was both the Body and Blood), but that was never the case in the Orthodox Church. The blood is communion with the life, the flesh with the living body where there is blood present.
Oliver Wright
If you actually want to know the Catholic answer to this, why dont you ask a Catholic message board where its far more likely someone will know the answer?
Unless of course your real intent is just to criticize the Catholic church.
Ryan Carter
The Whore of Babylon is drunk with the blood of the saints. You think you can get her to sober up? No, just be glad you're not partaking of her blasphemies, and get yourself saved.
Because you Orthodox are no more right with God than the Catholics are.
Dominic Jones
Same reason I don't just find some specialist site for every theological thread I post here.
Levi Murphy
what made you turn your trip back on?
Joshua Thomas
Because they'd be able to tell you exactly why you're wrong?
Juan Ross
What truthful rebuke did you just righteously utter of me, you worthiest of souls? I’ll have you know I failed God to the deepest of the pit in my class of worldly sinners, and I’ve been involved in numerous shameful transgressions on God's forgiveness, and I have over 300 confirmed faults. I am depraved in wicked thoughts and I’m the top coveter in the entire legions of the damned. I am nothing to thee but just another Satan. I will praise you to heaven and back with the most contrite of hearts the likes of which has been seen all too often from the sinner, mark my unworthy lips. You think you can serve away with your words of wisdom to me over the Internet? God bless, brother. As we speak I am contacting my holy communion of saints across heaven and your love is being traced right now so you better prepare for the Theosis, militant. The mercy that sustains the shining little thing you call your soul. You’re God's gift, kid. I can be all things at all times to all men, and I can bow to you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just while kissing your hand. Not only am I extensively corrupted by unnameable vileness, but I have betrayed to the entire covenant of the Orthodox Body of Christ, and I will plead her to her full benevolence to sanctify your virtuous spirit off the face of the lie, you little star. If only you could have known what holy gratitude your little “meek” correction was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have blessed your benign tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re reaping the harvest, you God fearing joy. I will weep thanks all over you and you will drown in it. You've found life, kiddo.
Luis Sanders
right, because you want to gather converts and attack the Catholic church, or whatever group is pissing you off that day
Thomas Ward
My bad. I had it left on from last night because I had turned it on when posters were being conflated.
Are you suggesting polemics ought to be prohibited from this board?
Nicholas Sanchez
Its worth considering.
Hudson Gonzalez
Maybe you should write a polemic against polemics.
Camden Gray
Just letting you know that it's faith AND works, not ''faith alone'', faith AND works. That's it.
Owen Reed
How odd. I assumed you did not trivialize your faith in this way.
Wyatt Nguyen
My faith is trivial, though I pray to God to make it grow.
Blake Hughes
Ephesians 2 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,
not of works,
lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.
Hebrews 12 Therefore we also, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which so easily ensnares us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.
Author and Finisher.
Saved first.
Then works.
Camden Martin
Does no one read Acts 15? But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. -Acts 15:20
Benjamin Miller
It's a shame you don't know how to be saved.
You can prove me wrong, of course, by saying exactly how it was that you were saved.
Evan Rodriguez
Yes, that's James the Judaizer getting his digs in at Paul.
Paul didn't care; he had no intention of obeying the so-called "pillars of the faith", men who added nothing to him. He just took the right hand of fellowship and left.
Matthew Anderson
This is actually correct
Adam Young
You're that autist who thinks James thought that Jesus was just a prophet, aren't you?
Ethan Kelly
Saint James the Brother of the Lord wasn't a Judaizer, he literally proclaimed the decision of the Council of Jerusalem.
Jaxon Torres
James is Jesus' half-brother, and never believed Jesus was the messiah until after the resurrection.
Why people hold James' writings up to the greatest writings of the greatest apostle of all time is ponderous to me.
But no, I don't think James was unsaved.
What's it with you calling everyone autistic? Do you think that's a good attack against people you don't know? Do you not know it reveals your own weakness?
Colton Howard
Saint James the Brother of the Lord was the first bishop of Jerusalem, and he was an early martyr according to Josephus, so he's held in high regard.
Luther, plz go.
Easton Clark
Literally a Judaizer. Taught openly in the Jewish temple without a problem from the Jews whatsoever. Told people to get circumcised, baptized and follow the Law of Moses.
Literally a Judaizer.
Leo Foster
Do we have a source for the council of Jerusalem that isn't the book of acts or paul's letters?
Jacob Fisher
He was an asshole and a Judaizer. Get over your idolatry. Dump your blanket appeals to authority.
Get right with God.
Daniel Edwards
Why would we look for another source? Because they're "biased"? Do you think there was such a thing as "objective history" back then?
Angel Cook
You are holding atheist hypotheses as a higher authority than Scripture, think about that.
Luke Phillips
What I'm getting at is how do we know they resolved the issue? And considering Acts was written by Luke (whose gospel was written for the very purpose of making gentiles feel welcome) then yes the author's biases are a pretty big deal
Adrian Sullivan
As I already explained to you in the other thread:
You can say the same thing about all sorts of ancient history, "The author had a bias, so how can we be sure?" Well, if you're Christian, you can be sure because Christ said his Church would always been around, not that it would disappear and die and then be Resurrected again. If you're a secularist, then you can't be sure, but the simplest explanation is that this account is true, and unless you have good evidence otherwise, you you accept it be default, that's how all ancient history is treated, minus miraculous or fantastic things.
Joseph Murphy
>If you're a secularist, then you can't be sure, but the simplest explanation is that this account is true, and unless you have good evidence otherwise, you you accept it be default, that's how all ancient history is treated m8. I'm not a historian but I'm pretty sure that's not how it works
John White
It's literally from the bible.
Gavin Torres
Constantine, when are you going to fix the obvious errors in your FAQs?
Jackson Myers
Yes, you have displayed all of your misunderstandings in a very comprehensive way.
For one, you cannot argue that Ephesians 2:8-9 supports your position.
For another, you cannot tell christians in this age from tribulation saints.
For another, you cannot tell that Jesus is the Rock, and not Peter. That Petros is not the petra.
For another, Martin Luther was a Catholic friar at all relevant times.
For another, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 goes on to say to the Christians assembled there "and so were some of you."
No, you have nothing to teach me, and much to learn.
Luke Morgan
Right about the same time he gives his testimony.
The 12th of Never.
Lucas Nelson
It is. For instance, that is how Herodotus is treated.
>Q1: Concerning the lack of portrayal of God as Triune in the Tanakh.
A1: Genesis 18 explicitly depicts YHWH as Triune, as Abraham refers to the three visitors by that name. (Other stuff omitted)
Genesis 18 does not have Abraham refer to the three visitors by God's name, because אֲדֹנָי used in Genesis 18:3 being used as a stand-in for "YHWH" is much later than the writing of the text. Furthermore, it is used numerous times throughout the bible, even to Abraham himself,
Genesis 23:5-6
>And the children of Heth answered Abraham, saying unto him:
>'Hear us, my lord: thou art a mighty prince among us; in the choice of our sepulchres bury thy dead; none of us shall withhold from thee his sepulchre, but that thou mayest bury thy dead.'
With that same אֲדֹנָי "My lord/master" writing.
Isaiah Martin
>Noahide Law
Do not deny God. Do not blaspheme God. Do not murder. Do not engage in illicit sexual relations. Do not steal. Do not eat of a live animal. Establish courts/legal system to ensure obedience to the law. >en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Laws_of_Noah
Nothing about blood here captian
Aiden Rodriguez
>you cannot argue that Ephesians 2:8-9 supports your position This passage does not support Luther's ''faith alone'' invention. Please stop being dishonest and read the passages I linked you to here and if you have balls, read: scripturecatholic.com/salvation.html scripturecatholic.com/justification.html
You have been deceived. Stop lying to yourself and accept these Biblical truths. Wake up.
Jonathan Cox
Probably just a Social Anxiety Disorder.
Daniel Ortiz
Probably just double digit IQ.
Leo Cooper
>Genesis 18 explicitly depicts YHWH as Triune, as Abraham refers to the three visitors by that name.
Two angels and Jesus is not the Trinity.
Bentley Martin
I quoted Scripture cocerning the Noahide Law in the OP (Genesis 9:4), you're quoting Wikipedia
Carson Sanchez
It absolutely does. And Luther did not invent anything. And I hate Martin Luther.
For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.
Quit boasting about your works. You have not enriched God one bit.
Aaron Gray
I don't really have social anxiety. I'm not very proactive at meeting people at all, but a lot of people seem to be interested in getting to know me, so it works out.
Matthew Johnson
Since when does the Noahide law matter, again? It's in the middle of Noah's covenant, the Flood/rainbow. It has nothing to do with the New Testament at all.
Nathan Wright
Explains the desire for structure and authority though. Poor dupe.
Jayden Sanders
Why do you think it is "two angels and Jesus" as opposed to the Trinity?
Liam Lopez
Because the NT reaffirms it. Acts 15:29
Isaac Sanders
>Matthew 16:19 >And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
PS: I do not boast about works, I am simply aware of the importance of righteousness.
Henry Hughes
This is about being able to absolve and excommunicate, it doesn't mean you can change dogma.
Oliver Butler
>3 Any living creature that moves about shall be yours to eat; I give them all to you as I did the green plants. 4 Only meat with its lifeblood still in it you shall not eat.
Justin Anderson
What you eat is disciplinary, not dogma
Ethan Bailey
Wow.
If you think three men walking together can in any way represent the Trinity, you are a polytheist.
Genesis 18 Then the men rose from there and looked toward Sodom, and Abraham went with them to send them on the way. And the Lord said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am doing,
Genesis 19 Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom.
Michael Carter
Nope. Just a debate about how many of Moses' Laws were going to be shoved down Paul's follower's throats.
The answer was zero.
Zero laws.
James was a Judaizer, and that's not a good thing.
Henry Rodriguez
Dude, the Whore of Babylon has nothing to teach me about God.
Gabriel Jenkins
>I am simply aware of the importance of righteousness.
Care to explain?
Robert Davis
What utter bullshit.
Do people think you're a Christian here? Really?
Peter opened heaven to the Jews on Pentecost. Peter opened heaven to the Gentiles at Cornelius' house.
The keys have been used. Heaven is open for business.
There is no power given to a man to include or exclude someone from the Kingdom of God.
That is an abomination.
Jacob Cooper
Have any patristic source on that?
So you're agreeing?
God is three persons, three existences of one entity.
I already made an argument as to why the Hebrew shows this, Hebrew prose is almost entirely in parataxis, and you cannot come to any other conclusion unless you read it through a lens other than parataxis.
Brayden Jones
Who destroyed the Whore of Babylon? Babylon did, which was pagan Rome. Babylon is a code name for Rome, which symbolized sexual and immoral excess. Revelation 17:16 says that the ten horns (symbolizing the rulers of pagan Rome) will destroy the whore by fire, which is exactly what the Romans did to Jerusalem in 70 AD. And then Revelation 17:14 says that the Lamb will conquer them both. This happened in the 4th Century, when Constantine became the first Christian emperor of Rome, who stopped all of the religious persecutions of Christians with the Edict of Milan in 313 AD. Constantine built the Vatican directly on top of the tomb of St. Peter, on Vatican Hill, outside the city of Rome.
>Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous. Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother. 1 John 3:7-10
See
Elijah Cooper
How the fuck can anyone believe in transubstantiation? I mean actual tests proved that the sacramental wine does NOT physically change into blood. I don't understand how can Catholics laugh at Creationist retards while believing in shit like that.
David Bennett
The commandment to not eat blood comes from Genesis, not Deuteronomy. Moses just reiterated it.
Explain what "binding" means here.
Mason Williams
Read John 6.
John Diaz
Holy Shroud of Turin's blood test results? AB- Holy Sudarium of Oviedo's blood test results? AB- Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano's blood test results? AB-
Also, after you read John 6, keep in mind that in Christianity, our actual bodies are Resurrected. This is done by making them joint bodies of Christ, that is the whole point. To become a living part of Christ's Body, which is accomplished through communion.
I'm Orthodox, so I don't believe in the validity of Catholic sacraments. It's not actually Christ's Body and Blood for them.
Chase Wood
If you read through the Gospels in the order they were written it seems to me that Jesus's personality changes a lot.
Starting with Mark, Jesus doesn't have a lot to say about his identity. Hell his own disciples don't quite clock the fact that he's the Messiah. He performs great wonders and tells everyone to keep it under wraps. He runs around calling everyone to repentance and says the end is pretty damn nigh. No mention of being the Way the Truth and the Life; if you want to go to heaven you need to get on your knees and repent. The story ends with the women finding the tomb empty - there is no encounter with the risen Jesus.
In Matthew and Luke the end is still pretty nigh but less so than in Mark. Luke after all repeatedly implies that the Gentiles need to be brought into the fold - there's work to be done before God can bring time and space screeching to a halt. Jesus's messianic status is made clear to his disciples but there is little trace of a high Christology.
John, which was written after the first few generations of Christians had passed away, makes very little mention of the End Times. He makes no effort to keep his identity under wraps and performs healings etc. for the very purpose of convincing people, in complete contrast to Mark. It's the only Gospel that spells Jesus's divinity out explicitly.
Scholars generally accept that Jesus's baptism by John, a bona fide apocalyptist, actually took place. We know the earliest Christians thought the Second Coming was imminent. Paul scrambles around Asia Minor setting up as many churches as he can and telling them to fasten their seatbelts because shit is going to get real any moment. It's not until towards the end of the century that the episcopate begins to take shape, people realize the End of Time isn't round the corner, and the view of Jesus as God rather than a mere Messiah or Son of God takes hold.
Isaac Edwards
That's impossible to prove or disprove since we can't just pull Jesus back to Earth and make him replicate the trick. And a mere man wouldn't be able to do that.
However we CAN and DID prove that sacramental wine doesn't change into literal blood.
>Hebrew Prose >In a Greek literary style invented literally centuries after the composition of the texts.
No, you, like other Greeks and Greek inspired people, slapped on a bunch of non-related literary styles to something you barely understood. The fact that you have "short, simple sentences" does nothing to change that; nor does it change the meaning of "He ran over to them" before he starts talking, nor does it change that the euphamism of the tetragrammaton as "Adonai" post-dates the text, nor does it change that other people, including Abraham, get referred to as "Adonai", so your claim that it is only used to address God is demonstrably false.
Caleb Carter
>Genesis 18 >Greek literary style Explain
Nolan Brooks
Oh, you mean the term "parataxis" is Greek. Well, yes it is, but parataxical construction was hardly invented by the Greeks.
Logan Robinson
I just literally showed you in Genesis 18 and 19 how the three men were the Lord Jesus and two angels.
Xavier Torres
Nobody, yet.
Rome is Babylon. Roman Catholicism is Mystery Babylon, the Whore. The pope is the False Prophet of Mystery Babylon.
Revelation has not played out yet, amillenialist scum.
Nicholas Campbell
So to you, righteousness is trying to stop sinning. Is that your position? Have you achieved a sinless nature? Are you a righteous person?
Lincoln Miller
Yes, but "parataxical construction" doesn't do anything to help the case that the statement addressed in Genesis 18:3 is directed at God and not the three angels/men. Especially since the hallmark of parataxis is to join two seemingly independent statements by their proximity. What's the most recent action before Abraham gives his speech? He runs over to the three dudes and bows to them. Ergo, the statement is likely addressed to them, not God.
Jayden Robinson
Their faith is in their church to save them, and their church tells them that they have magic rites and rituals that turns the crackers and juice into the real presence.
The real presence is satanic.
So justify trying to drink Jesus' blood.
"Binding" is finding guilty; "loosing" is finding innocent.
Benjamin Gonzalez
You're something, all right.
Just not a Christian.
Which is a shame, because you seem like you would want to be a christian.
Ryder Richardson
Wrong.
>Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins. Ecclesiastes 7:20
Jace Taylor
You can't understand the gospels until you understand who wrote them, to whom, and why.
Matthew: Levi, the apostle and tax collector, wrote his gospel in Hebrew to the Hebrews to portray Jesus as the Lion, the King of the Jews. Hence the lineage; hence the references to the OT; hence the coming Kingdom of God on earth.
Mark, John Mark, wrote Peter's account to the Romans. Jesus was portrayed as the Suffering Servant, the Ox. Hence no lineage, and a lot of suffering.
Luke, the doctor and Paul's friend, wrote to the Greeks to put all of these things in good order; i.e. chronologically. He's the only one to claim to do this; the others famously do not. Luke portrayed Jesus as the Son of Man to the Greeks.
John the beloved apostle wrote his gospel to the world to show Jesus as the Son of God, the Eagle.
These four images, these four faces of Jesus, the Lion, Ox, Son of Man and Eagle also appear on the four creatures before the throne of God.
Isaiah Gomez
>So justify trying to drink Jesus' blood. John 6:53-56
Drinking blood is a seal to communion, that is precisely why we are supposed to do it with Christ, and precisely why we are not supposed to do it with animals.
Cooper Allen
Fag
Jeremiah Robinson
So you still have not given me a definition of righteousness, nor have you claimed to be righteous. In fact, you have claimed the opposite; that nobody is righteous.
And yet Jesus said that unless your personal righteousness exceeds that of the very devout and religious pharisees and scribes, you will in no way enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.
How then will you be saved? By your works? Your works make you righteous? More righteous than the works of the Law done by the most devout pharisees who ever existed?
Carson Bell
Bait?
Connor Martinez
No, it's disgusting, against God's law, against man's law, and it never happens at the eucharist. You never have consumed any of Jesus' blood.
Keep reading in John 6.
Realize that there is spiritual food, and spiritual drink, and that these are more important than physical food and physical drink.
Stop listening to the Whore of Babylon. She lies, like her father satan lies.
Wyatt Bennett
>you have claimed the opposite; that nobody is righteous Nice reading comprehension btw.
David Lewis
It's a pretty simple test. Someone says they're a christian, you ask them how, they have no clue.
So, not a christian.
Jack Wood
Bible verses.
Grayson Allen
>shitposting heretic proddy filth
Hunter Johnson
> (You) >>Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins. >Ecclesiastes 7:20
