What do Protestants think of John 6:51-56, Acts 2:38, John 20:21-23, John 3:5, James 2:24 and 2 Thess 2:15?

What do Protestants think of John 6:51-56, Acts 2:38, John 20:21-23, John 3:5, James 2:24 and 2 Thess 2:15?

Other urls found in this thread:

pastebin.com/FjeXZhXj
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eidolon_(apparition)
accordingtothescriptures.org/prophecy/353prophecies.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Jesus was just explaining the Jewish Sader custom.The dogma of Transubstantiation was not even officially defined until 1551 at the Council of Trent.
It has nothing to do with true Christianjty

Mm, the doctrine that the bread is truly Christ's Body and the wine truly his blood definitely has to do with Christianity. The Orthodox subscribe to it and have long before the schism, in fact since the early Church. Paul said if you partake without discerning this, you do so to your condemnation.

>Veeky Forums - Protestants vs Catholics
goddamn I would like a fair ratio between real history threads, religious threads and hypothetical threads

Jesus is the WORD,He is NOT toast!!

Your toast-god leaves you hungry for more, we are fulfilled forever with His Word

You know, there are some things it's not appropriate to joke about, and this is one of them. If you are religious, what you're doing is called "sacrilege", and it is very serious.

Hi there!

You seem to have made a bit of a mistake in your post. Luckily, the users of Veeky Forums are always willing to help you clear this problem right up! You appear to have used a tripcode when posting, but your identity has nothing at all to do with the conversation! Whoops! You should always remember to stop using your tripcode when the thread it was used for is gone, unless another one is started! Posting with a tripcode when it isn't necessary is poor form. You should always try to post anonymously, unless your identity is absolutely vital to the post that you're making!

Now, there's no need to thank me - I'm just doing my bit to help you get used to the anonymous image-board culture!

And what you're doing is called "idolatry", and it is far more serious.

>John 6:51-56
It shows that the Eucharist bread truly is the lord; He is the and he comes in with and under the host.

>Acts 2:38
Against whom are you even arguing with that?
No one is an arain here...

>John 20:21-23
That sins can be forgiven in confession.
Read the fucking CA.

>John 3:5
Again: Against whom do you even argue here?

>James 2:24
That your faith is real only if it has consequences. - It says not alone by faith. NOT instead of faith.

>2 Thess 2:15
We are not the sedevacantists here, that reject whole councils, are we? (Kek).


You just LOVE your Strawman-Arguments, do you OP?

>lord
kys

?

You gotta be honest, you fucked up there m8

kidding?

pastebin.com/FjeXZhXj

Firstly, we know the ancient Hebrews did not have a problem with images in their temples. If you care to look up the ancient synagogue of Dura-Europos (since destroyed by Daesh), you will see that it was covered with images from the Hebrew Bible. The Hebrew Bible itself describes numerous images in places of worship (Exodus 25:19-20, Exodus 26:1, Exodus 26:31, 1 Kings 6:23-29, just like Orthodox temples today, the Hebrew Temple was supposed to be like being in heaven, hence all the angels). First, let's examine the word, used in Exodus 20:4, often translated as "likeness" or "form" is תְּמוּנָה (temunah); the Septuagint's equivalent to this is εἶδος (eidos), this is the term Plato is so fond of, and it is generally translated in his works as "form". This is *not* the same term used for likeness is many other parts of the Bible. For instance, the word translated as likeness in Genesis 1:26 is דְּמוּת (demuth), or דָּמָה (damah) in verb form--this term is also often translated as "similitude" in the King James Bible, such as in Hosea 12:10; the Greek equivalent to this is ὁμοίωμα (homoioma). If we look at how these words are used, the distinction is readily apparent: prophets often used the term "demuth" when describing what their visions looked like (Ezekiel 10:21, for instance), whereas temunah is used to mean a form (man is made in the likeness of God, not in the form of God) such as in Job 4:16, Psalms 17:15 and Deuteronomy 4:12, this term is often used as a stand-in for the face of God, which in Orthodox theology is God's uncreated grace, which is fully and truly God, and which we can behold (unlike God's essence, which is infinitely transcendent and beyond all creatures), it is *form* as opposed to the *simulacrum*.

cont

Now the term translated as "graven image" (or "idol" in other parts) is the word פֶּ֫סֶל (pesel), the Greek equivalent of this is the term εἴδωλον (eidolon), which is the source of the English word "idol"; it comes from the aforementioned "eidos". An eidolon is an avatar: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eidolon_(apparition) Now this term is very distinct from צֶ֫לֶם (tselem), which is word translated as "image" in Genesis 1:26--the Greek equivalent here is εἰkών (eikón), source of the English word "icon"; you would used the term icon to describe someone's reflection, but you would never use it to describe someone's avatar (idol). While idolatry (idol + latria) is wrong, beholding icons is spiritually advisable, it's not just a matter of ornamentation, it's far more important. The more you behold something like pornography, the more harmful it is to you spiritually, but the more behold something like holy icons, the more beneficial it is to you spiritually. "The lamp of the body is the eye! If therefore your eye is sound, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eye is evil, your whole body will be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!" [Matthew 6:22-23, Orthodox translation]. Everything we see affects our spiritual health, either positively, or harmfully, and icons are crucial among the positive things. You are what you see, so to speak.

Did Noah die when he was 950 years old and did did Jesus lie when he confirmed the Flood account?

Not capitalizing the word or what?
I seriously do not get it.

>Did Noah die when he was 950 years old
Either that or lifespan is used to gauge how close to God one is, and it's overall decline shows the decline of spiritual since the fall (which brought death into the world). After all, David, who is a very important figure, didn't have the age of his death recorded, it was just a "good old age", which seems odd if someone's actual age of death is considered important.

>did Jesus lie when he confirmed the Flood account?
No, there was a flood, and Noah was a real person.

The toast is your idol heathen,give it up and accept Christ as your savior,whos full and completed sacrifice was on the cross.

Christ's sacrifice only has meaning in the context of his Resurrection. Your body is resurrected by being made a part of his immortal body, which is achieved through communion.

>lifespan is used to gauge how close to God one is
Genesis chapter 5 lists nine men who had very long lives. How and why they lived such long lives is not specifically said. Adam lived 930 years (Genesis 5:5). Seth lived 912 years (Genesis 5:8). Enosh lived 905 years (Genesis 5:11). Kenan lived 910 years (Genesis 5:14). Mahalalel lived 895 years (Genesis 5:17). Jared lived 962 years (Genesis 5:20). Enoch lived 365 years before God took him (Genesis 5:22–24). Lamech lived 777 years (Genesis 5:21). Genesis 9:29 records that Noah lived 950 years. But the oldest man in the Bible, outliving all the rest, is a man named Methuselah, who lived 969 years (Genesis 5:27).

Were they all real people? Explain yourself.

>there was a flood
Was it global as the Bible makes it clear and did it happen when Noah was 600 years old as Genesis 7:6 makes it clear?

I remember you. Reminder:

Hebrew/English

Adam = Man
Seth = Appointed
Enosh = Mortal
Kenan = Sorrow
Mahalalel = The Blessed God
Jared = Shall come down
Enoch = Teaching
Methuselah = His death shall bring
Lamech = The Despairing
Noah = Rest, or comfort.

>Man (is) appointed mortal sorrow; (but) the Blessed God shall come down teaching (that) His death shall bring (the) despairing rest.

Did a global Flood happen?

Chickened out?

Didn't you ask her these questions like two or three times already? How many times did you want her to answer?

He still hasn't answered. He does not believe in the Bible.

Chickened out?

I can't answer your question with complete certainty but I believe that it is possible that an event similar to the one which is described in the divinely inspired Great Deluge narrative could have occurred in ancient history though what truly matters is the message that is being conveyed and its rich symbolism.

>"God ordered Noah to build an ark in which he and his family would escape from the devastation of the flood. Undoubtedly the ark is a symbol of the City of God on pilgrimage in this world; that is, a symbol of the Church which was saved by the wood on which there hung the Mediator between God and men-Christ Jesus, Himself a man. Even the measurements of length, height, and breadth of the ark are a symbol of the human body in which He came ... The door open in the side of the ark surely symbolizes the open wound made by the lance in the side of the Crucified-the door by which those who come to him enter in the sense that believers enter the Church by means of the sacraments which issued from that wound."
(St. Augustine, De civitate Dei, 15, 26; quoted in The Navarre Bible: Pentateuch, Princeton, NJ: Scepter Publishers, 1999; pg. 70)

There is also a clear link between the appearance of the dove holding the olive branch in Genesis 8:11 which symbolizes a new beginning for mankind following the subsiding of the waters and the dove identified as the Holy Spirit in the Gospels which descended on Jesus Christ following His baptism.

If you're not just a smug protestant check out:
accordingtothescriptures.org/prophecy/353prophecies.html

Remember:
>All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
2 Timothy 3:16-17

Answer.

>le X orthodox doctrine didn't exist until Trent meme

...

>No one is an arain here...
I have seen most prots here deny that Christ is divine

>protestant
>'s
bruh

>gets rekt
>keeps shitposting

I want an answer from Constantine too.

It's been an hour, will I get an answer?

>literally chickened out

What makes Paul such a reliable source anyway? I've always struggled with this. Like I get that he wrote part of the Bible but his stuff seems strangely separate from the rest, like some guy just came along and added things. It's like he's the original Joeph Smith but we all collectively take him seriously.

Then they are neither Lutherans (true protestants) nor Calvinists and can be thrown on the pyre as much as I care for.

Paul was the first guy that we know of to write a large volume of didactic material about how to practice the worship of Christ. Obviously his writings differ, sometimes quite a bit, from those of the evangelists, but he's a very important source on how the Christian movement evolved in the first century.

Protestants explain

lol

they can't

lol

So if I were to perform an autopsy on a person who dies right after taking the eucharist I'm going to find Jesus' flesh and blood in their stomach, right?

It's symbolic, not literal.

This is the official Protestant response.

Some of the earliest writinga on Christian doctrine explicitly talk about the real presence. I really don't get Protestants, if they are so adamant about rejecting ANYTHING that is not explicitly explained in the Bible, why do they subscribe to Church Council dogma? Why are they even trinitarians, for that matter? It's not consistent at all.

That is opposite to Luther and all the Church Fathers.

At least of the Protestants, I can appreciate the Lutherans

thnx gonna look at the link l8tr

>protestants
>think
make a choice

If you want Early Christian icon, just look at the Nomina Sacra

Again, I am not that well-versed in Protestant history or dogma.

Singaporean Christianity is shockingly similar to Evangelical Christianity in yhe States I would not be surprised if the same shallow thinking and passive support for the leading political party in power is lifted straight from the American society it was in.

Also, the implication here is that Luther believed in transubstantiation(sic). I was led to believe that he didn't. What is the explanation here?

I'm not talking about Transubstantiation but the belief that the body and blood of Christ is objectively the bread and wine consumed in the Eucharist. Luther doesn't believe in Transexualisation but did believe that the bread and wine are the real body and blood of Christ

>John 6:51-56
An obvious metaphor for his sacrifice nourishing our souls.
>Acts 2:38
Baptism may be symbolically important, but does nothing. If anything, it shows genuine repentance.
>John 20:21-23
Believe and forgive. Those who do not are not themselves forgiven.
>John 3:5
This is talking about belief. Water is a symbol of divinity, which is why Christ bled half-water when his heart was pierced.
>James 2:24
Yes. A person can be saved and not be righteous.
>2 Thess 2:15
These teachings would be directly linked to Jesus Christ. Church tradition is not, and he can chart the development of the church having nothing to do with Jesus.

I am a Protestant, and that is what I think of those passages. To be honest, I don't understand why Catholics think Protestants are childish for not believing that bread and wine suddenly become bread-flavored flesh and wine-flavored blood in order to commit holy cannibalism every Sunday.

I have no opinion on that, but from what I know, a lot of Protestants believe that the bread and wine are symbolic of the sacrifice Jesus made. I am unfamiliar with this specific belief.

If you are saying that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Jesus, I would need a church elder or pastor to check and I am sadly unchurched due to political differences arising from the passive support of Singaporean churches of the PAP.

Tell that to Ignatius, Irenaeus, Justin et al.

Excluding the Lutherans and some Anglicans and perhaps, Methodists. The rest believe as you said following Calvin and Zwlingli. If you want to verify the nature of the Eucharist, look no further than the consistent proclaimations of the Church Fathers and Biblical scholarship on the subject

>he thinks it's still 2007 and people still give a shit about trips
>he doesn't know that a high level of discourse is expected

If they have some issue they can come find me.

They don't need to when the fact that they show how the early church's take on the Eucharist is in fact contradictory to those who deny the consumption of the body and blood of Christ

The early church means nothing to me. Jesus' teachings, as presented in the Bible, are infinitely more important that what was done after his ascent. What the church fathers did and said is good and all, but ultimately this is not the early church.

You mean like how it is also contradictory to that of yours?

Do you have a point or do you just like saying that word?

From the Anchor Bible Dictionary


“Appropriately there may have been initially the dominant conviction that the exalted Lord was present as participant and host at the celebration of the meal in his church. This personal presence must be viewed as the sustaining basis for every form of the presence of the Lord in the sacrament. Besides that, the Lord‘s Supper was interpreted eschatologically above all in times of acute anticipation, as proleptic presence of the imminent end of the age which, in keeping with apocalyptic expectation, was to culminate in a festal meal. Through the deliberate step back to Jesus‘ Last Supper, and then, via the Easter event, an event that made the Supper possible, there is added another essential element: the commemoration of the death of Jesus on the cross in its saving power. This aspect of the presence of the death of Jesus was utilized above all by Paul within the framework of his theologia crucis.

All these forms of presence are naturally quite real. However, people have gotten into the habit of tying the real presence of the body and blood of Christ to the elements of the supper, i.e., the bread and wine. The words of interpretation in the account of the Institution are intended for this purpose. Within the NT such an understanding of the words of interpretation are to be found in John 6:52–58, possibly also in 1 Cor 10:16–22, certainly in Corinthians, and finally in the account of the Institution itself, if one reads it as cult-aetiology in the form in which Mark and Matthew give it. The significance of this model of interpretation for the ancient and medieval church‘s teaching on the eucharist is obvious. There is reason to suspect unmistakably the presence of a strong influence of Hellenistic thinking and Hellenistic cultpiety, both in the NT and in early Christian tradition.”-ibid, pg 5374

Luther believed in Consubstantiation

Okay, thanks for that. Really opened up my eyes.

There's that word again.