Oldbear83 said:
My thoughts and opinion on Mary with regard to prayers, rank and such were plainly posted here long ago.
Mary is a woman of great faith, and someone all believers should respect. I am gravely concerned about the many people who pray to Mary, and especially those who consider her as worthy of worship. The excuse that such behavior is not 'official' in no way means it is not happening.
Oldbear83 said:
My thoughts and opinion on Mary with regard to prayers, rank and such were plainly posted here long ago.
Mary is a woman of great faith, and someone all believers should respect. I am gravely concerned about the many people who pray to Mary, and especially those who consider her as worthy of worship. The excuse that such behavior is not 'official' in no way means it is not happening.
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
BUDOS and OldBear,
The topic of this thread is about Mary, so why not a Mary question?
Do you believe that Roman Catholic and Orthodox prayers/liturgy to Mary which say the following:
" Most Holy Virgin Immaculate, my Mother Mary,
to you who are the Mother of my Lord, the Queen of the universe, the advocate,
the hope, and the refuge of sinners,
I venerate you, great Queen, and I thank you for the many graces
you have bestowed upon me even unto this day;
in particular for having delivered me from the hell
which I have so often deserved by my sins....
... I promise to serve you willingly for ever...
... I place in you all my hopes for salvation"
OR
"Mary is the propitiation of the whole world. Through Mary our sin is remitted."
"She is the gate of salvation."
"She is the provider of God's mercy."
"She taketh away the filth of sin."
"She is the salvation of my soul."
"She is the acceptable sacrifice."
.... do you believe that these prayers are idolatrous and heretical?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
BUDOS and OldBear,
The topic of this thread is about Mary, so why not a Mary question?
Do you believe that Roman Catholic and Orthodox prayers/liturgy to Mary which say the following:
" Most Holy Virgin Immaculate, my Mother Mary,
to you who are the Mother of my Lord, the Queen of the universe, the advocate,
the hope, and the refuge of sinners,
I venerate you, great Queen, and I thank you for the many graces
you have bestowed upon me even unto this day;
in particular for having delivered me from the hell
which I have so often deserved by my sins....
... I promise to serve you willingly for ever...
... I place in you all my hopes for salvation"
OR
"Mary is the propitiation of the whole world. Through Mary our sin is remitted."
"She is the gate of salvation."
"She is the provider of God's mercy."
"She taketh away the filth of sin."
"She is the salvation of my soul."
"She is the acceptable sacrifice."
.... do you believe that these prayers are idolatrous and heretical?
BUDOS and OldBear? What is your answer?
Oldbear83 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
BUDOS and OldBear,
The topic of this thread is about Mary, so why not a Mary question?
Do you believe that Roman Catholic and Orthodox prayers/liturgy to Mary which say the following:
" Most Holy Virgin Immaculate, my Mother Mary,
to you who are the Mother of my Lord, the Queen of the universe, the advocate,
the hope, and the refuge of sinners,
I venerate you, great Queen, and I thank you for the many graces
you have bestowed upon me even unto this day;
in particular for having delivered me from the hell
which I have so often deserved by my sins....
... I promise to serve you willingly for ever...
... I place in you all my hopes for salvation"
OR
"Mary is the propitiation of the whole world. Through Mary our sin is remitted."
"She is the gate of salvation."
"She is the provider of God's mercy."
"She taketh away the filth of sin."
"She is the salvation of my soul."
"She is the acceptable sacrifice."
.... do you believe that these prayers are idolatrous and heretical?
BUDOS and OldBear? What is your answer?
Answered, for my part, long ago. Beyond that I am giving you a time out.
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doc Holliday said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doc Holliday said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doc Holliday said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doc Holliday said:
Do ya'll understand Hebrews 13?
Paul is contrasting what we (Christians) eat at the altar, versus what the Jews eat at the tabernacle.
The Old Covenant priests ate from animal sacrifices at the tabernacle, that's the plain meaning of verses 10-11. Then verse 10 says "we have an altar from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat."
Then verse 15 says to "offer up a sacrifice of praise." The word there is eucharistia. It's not just "say thanks." In this context, surrounded by altar, sacrifice, blood, and priesthood language, it's ritual offering vocabulary. Paul isn't randomly switching from physical categories to a purely mental one mid-paragraph. He's naming the new sacrifice that replaces the old one.
The whole passage only makes sense as priesthood-to-priesthood, altar-to-altar, sacrifice-to-sacrifice, eating-to-eating. If the Christian side of that comparison is just an inward feeling of gratitude, the contrast falls apart and doesn't make sense, because you'd be comparing a real, physical, exclusionary system to something anyone can do regardless of church membership. That's not what the text sets up. It sets up two competing systems, and says ours is better and still ours to eat from.
Apparently, you do not understand Hebrews 13 at all.
NOTHING in Hebrews 13 says that the communion bread and wine are the "Real Presence" of Jesus, or that communion/the Eucharist is the replacement "ceremony" for the church that is the necessary means for us to receive some kind of grace. Where it says "those who serve the tent (Old Covenant Jews who still perform animal sacrifices) have no right to eat", the "eating" there is not literal. He's making the point that the New Covenant involves a higher form of "eating" that the Old Covenant Jews rejected. The "eating" isn't physical. This is made obvious by reading the verse immediately prior:
"... for it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by foods, which have not benefited those devoted to them."
The author clearly is setting up the meaning of "eating" in the following verse in the mind of the reader to convey something higher and more significant than the physical ingestion of food.
Verse 15, which you reference, perfectly illustrates how the author is elevating the concepts of "eating" and "sacrifice" to go BEYOND, not be identical to, their meaning in the Old Covenant way:
"Through him then let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that acknowledge his name. Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God."
It's really odd how you can read a verse thinking it makes your argument, when it completely destroys it. Clearly, this verse is saying that the "Eucharist" is NOT a sacrifice that involves the real, actual re-presentation of Jesus' sacrifice that is performed on an physical altar by human priests - but rather a "sacrifice" that comes from the heart of the believer in the form of thanksgiving, praise, obedience, and love for others. The very verse you offered as support for your view completely destroys it and fully supports the Protestant view instead.
Here is the outline: don't slide back into ceremonial food law (v.9), we have a real altar you don't have access to (v.10), pointing to Christ's sacrifice outside the camp (v.11-13), and because of that we also offer praise and good works (v.15-16). That's addition, not swap. You've got cause and effect flipped, treating our response to the altar as if it erases the altar.
You've got the logic backwards. Verse 9's "foods" isn't saying eating in general is now some metaphor, it's talking about Jewish food laws, same thing Hebrews 9:10 already covers, "foods and drinks and various washings." It's saying don't get sucked back into Mosaic dietary rules, not "eating doesn't mean eating anymore."
Then verse 10 switches to a totally different image: an altar. "We have an altar those who serve the tent have no right to eat from." That keeps going with real priestly language, actual animals, actual blood, an actual high priest, burned outside the camp. The whole passage is set up as a parallel, their altar and eating vs. our altar and eating. If you want "eat" to suddenly mean something non-physical only on our side, you have to show me that in the text. You're just asserting it and it doesn't make any sense.
And verse 15 doesn't redefine verse 10, it adds to it. Nothing says "sacrifice of praise" replaces the altar. It's an extra exhortation, right next to verse 16's " do good and share." Those are the fruits that come from having the altar, not a reinterpretation that cancels it out. You're treating two separate things, the altar-eating in v.10 and the praise sacrifice in v.15, like the second one swallows the first. Hebrews never says that.
You're looking at this passage with confirmation bias through your Orthodox lens, so you're reading it as a prescription for the New Covenant church to have the same system of temples, priests, altars, sacrifices, and the physical eating of the sacrifice that was characteristic of the Old Covenant. But this is completely missing the point the author is making, and is in fact going backwards from what the author intended. That old system is obsolete. There is NO MORE SACRIFICE. Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was the finished, once-for-all-time sacrifice for all sins, past, present and future. It completely eliminates the need for any further sacrifice."It is finished". Similarly, there is no more temple, because God now resides in the hearts of believers. There is no more organizational priesthood, because Jesus is now our one, true Priest who intercedes for us directly with God, and we are the "priesthood of believers". There is no more sacrificial "altar" to atone for our sins, because the final sacrifice has already been made. And there is no more literal, physical eating of the sacrifice - the "eating" is what we do when we, by believing in Jesus, gain spiritual sustenance leading to eternal life, which is superior to physical eating, which only gives us physical sustenance towards physical, temporal life. The point of Hebrews was to show that the New Covenant is made superior to the Old - the Old was only a type, a shadow of what was to come. The "altar" and "eating" language the author uses in this chapter in reference to the New Covenant is describing a new, higher, spiritual reality that is superior to the Old. The author is NOT making a one-to-one comparison with the Old Covenant to where the "eating" in the New is the same physical eating as in the Old, but rather a new, spiritual form of it.
Therefore, there is no need whatsoever for the communion bread and wine to contain the presence of Jesus in some "real" way in order for the communion "sacrifice" to be an actual, efficacious sacrifice. The efficacious sacrifice has already been completed. Jesus does not have to be "present" within the bread and wine of communion - he was present at the cross and that is all that was needed. The "Real Presence" of Jesus" in a repeated ceremonial sacrifice is a pure redundancy. And what's infinitely worse, it's actually a rejection of the finished work of Jesus on the cross. And this is what Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy formalize as dogma, a requirement for salvation. Absolutely incredible, and disgusting.
The fact that the author of Hebrews only tells us that the "eucharist" is a "sacrifice of praise"... never once mentioning anything about the sacrifice involving a kind of "real" presence within the communion bread and wine... is illustrative of all of this, and it completely invalidates your view. You're really reading HEAVILY your Orthodox theology into this passage, and your reasoning above is completely forced.
And it needs to be restated, that nowhere, not in Hebrews or anywhere else in Scripture are we told that if a believer takes communion as a symbol/memorial rather than as a "Real Presence", that there is any kind of loss for that believer, let alone salvation itself. A fact made evident by your complete failure to tell us what it is exactly that the believer misses out on. The Roman Catholics fail to do the same. Which reminds me to ask you again: if you really believe that Hebrews 13 and John 6 are telling you that "eating the sacrifice" is to be done in the same manner as in the Old Covenant.... then why aren't you holding to the Roman Catholic view?
Neither Orthodoxy nor Catholicism teaches Christ is sacrificed again at each liturgy. Hebrews itself says "once for all" (9:26-28), and Orthodox theology fully affirms that. What's claimed is that the one, finished sacrifice is made truly present and truly participated in at each Eucharist, not repeated, not added to, or improved on. You don't know our theology man. Seriously, this is basic stuff we don't believe…
On "no more altar, temple, priesthood," you're asserting all of that, but Hebrews itself doesn't erase this language, it keeps using it in the present tense about the church. "We have an altar" (13:10) is present tense, not "we used to have." If everything physical/institutional was dissolved into pure inward spirituality, why does the author keep reaching for priest, altar, sacrifice, blood language to describe what Christians presently have, rather than simply saying "you don't need any of that anymore"? You're reading your conclusion into the tense of the verbs.
You haven't shown me where the text itself says "eating" here means something non-physical. You've given me a theological system (finished sacrifice, priesthood of all believers, indwelling Spirit) and then used that system to tell me what "eat" must mean here. You're reading a system into a text.
Rome dogmatizes a specific philosophical mechanism, transubstantiation. They try to explain it scientifically and break it apart (that's nominalism btw). Orthodoxy affirms the reality of the change without dogmatizing the metaphysical mechanism, it's held as a mystery, not explained.
I did answer what's missed, repeatedly, real union with Christ's life, tied to actual resurrection (John 6:54), the actual participation Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 10:16. You calling that answer invisible doesn't make it invisible.
Nowhere did I say that RC/Orthodoxy "sacrifices again" in the Eucharist. What I said about their view, is clearly the official view of those churches: that the Eucharist is an actual, propitiatory sacrifice. Yes, I do know your theology. You should know by know that I'm not gonna claim things that I can't back up.
As I've clearly said, Hebrews isn't "erasing" the language of "altar", "priest", "temple", etc. it's elevating them to a new, superior form that is the ultimate realization of the Old Covenant types. Your problem is that you're still reading them through Old Covenant lenses.
On "eating" being figurative, rather than literal: you're missing the context that the author of Hebrews himself set up in the previous verse, where he says we are to be strengthened by grace, NOT by foods - in other words, by a spiritual, non-physical form of sustenance, i.e. "eating". The author is carrying over this same idea into his very next verse, where he says those Old Covenant Jews who reject Jesus have "no right" to "eat" this way because they rejected him. Even apart from this, the idea of a spiritual form of "eating" goes right along with the entire message of the book, which is that the Old Covenant types of of temples, priests, sacrifice, and "eating" have all now been realized in their new, superior, and spiritual form where their nature and significance have been perfected. It's hardly conceivable that this author of Hebrews would really be saying that physically putting something into our stomachs is this new and superior way we are reconciled with God.
And one only needs to look at Scripture to confirm all of this - the repeated declarations that salvation is by faith, that believing in Jesus from the heart is how one is justified, and in the direct examples where people were saved or told how to be saved, without physically eating a single thing, or told that they had to.
"I did answer what's missed, repeatedly" - and your answer is completely invalidated by Scripture. You can't even hold your answer consistent with your own theology. It falls apart every time the thief, sinful woman of Luke 7, and the house of Cornelius, none of whom ate anything, are brought up. It completely falls apart with Jesus words in John 6:40. Seriously - if you honestly believe that physically eating something is the way we receive the grace of salvation, then you simply do not understand the Gospel. It's a thinking like Nicodemus, when he tried to understand being "born again" in physical terms. It's a worrisome sign that you may have not truly been regenerated by the Spirit.
Faith is the necessary prerequisite to receive grace worthily. Paul explicitly says in 1 Corinthians 11 that eating without faith/discernment brings judgment, not magic salvation. Sacraments do not replace faith: they're the physical conduits through which God imparts grace to the faithful, just as Jesus used physical spit and mud to heal the blind man, or water in baptism (1 Peter 3:21).
How did the house of Cornelius get saved without receiving grace through the "physical conduit" of the Eucharist? Your view necessitates the belief that at the end of their story in the book of Acts, they were still not saved. And if you can't see how truly absurd that is, then your Orthodox tribalism has completely overtaken whatever rationality and logic you had.
Doc? How did the house of Cornelius get saved without receiving grace through the "physical conduit" of the Eucharist?
You really can't avoid this question, if your church's view is to be tenable.
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doc Holliday said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doc Holliday said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doc Holliday said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doc Holliday said:
Do ya'll understand Hebrews 13?
Paul is contrasting what we (Christians) eat at the altar, versus what the Jews eat at the tabernacle.
The Old Covenant priests ate from animal sacrifices at the tabernacle, that's the plain meaning of verses 10-11. Then verse 10 says "we have an altar from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat."
Then verse 15 says to "offer up a sacrifice of praise." The word there is eucharistia. It's not just "say thanks." In this context, surrounded by altar, sacrifice, blood, and priesthood language, it's ritual offering vocabulary. Paul isn't randomly switching from physical categories to a purely mental one mid-paragraph. He's naming the new sacrifice that replaces the old one.
The whole passage only makes sense as priesthood-to-priesthood, altar-to-altar, sacrifice-to-sacrifice, eating-to-eating. If the Christian side of that comparison is just an inward feeling of gratitude, the contrast falls apart and doesn't make sense, because you'd be comparing a real, physical, exclusionary system to something anyone can do regardless of church membership. That's not what the text sets up. It sets up two competing systems, and says ours is better and still ours to eat from.
Apparently, you do not understand Hebrews 13 at all.
NOTHING in Hebrews 13 says that the communion bread and wine are the "Real Presence" of Jesus, or that communion/the Eucharist is the replacement "ceremony" for the church that is the necessary means for us to receive some kind of grace. Where it says "those who serve the tent (Old Covenant Jews who still perform animal sacrifices) have no right to eat", the "eating" there is not literal. He's making the point that the New Covenant involves a higher form of "eating" that the Old Covenant Jews rejected. The "eating" isn't physical. This is made obvious by reading the verse immediately prior:
"... for it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by foods, which have not benefited those devoted to them."
The author clearly is setting up the meaning of "eating" in the following verse in the mind of the reader to convey something higher and more significant than the physical ingestion of food.
Verse 15, which you reference, perfectly illustrates how the author is elevating the concepts of "eating" and "sacrifice" to go BEYOND, not be identical to, their meaning in the Old Covenant way:
"Through him then let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that acknowledge his name. Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God."
It's really odd how you can read a verse thinking it makes your argument, when it completely destroys it. Clearly, this verse is saying that the "Eucharist" is NOT a sacrifice that involves the real, actual re-presentation of Jesus' sacrifice that is performed on an physical altar by human priests - but rather a "sacrifice" that comes from the heart of the believer in the form of thanksgiving, praise, obedience, and love for others. The very verse you offered as support for your view completely destroys it and fully supports the Protestant view instead.
Here is the outline: don't slide back into ceremonial food law (v.9), we have a real altar you don't have access to (v.10), pointing to Christ's sacrifice outside the camp (v.11-13), and because of that we also offer praise and good works (v.15-16). That's addition, not swap. You've got cause and effect flipped, treating our response to the altar as if it erases the altar.
You've got the logic backwards. Verse 9's "foods" isn't saying eating in general is now some metaphor, it's talking about Jewish food laws, same thing Hebrews 9:10 already covers, "foods and drinks and various washings." It's saying don't get sucked back into Mosaic dietary rules, not "eating doesn't mean eating anymore."
Then verse 10 switches to a totally different image: an altar. "We have an altar those who serve the tent have no right to eat from." That keeps going with real priestly language, actual animals, actual blood, an actual high priest, burned outside the camp. The whole passage is set up as a parallel, their altar and eating vs. our altar and eating. If you want "eat" to suddenly mean something non-physical only on our side, you have to show me that in the text. You're just asserting it and it doesn't make any sense.
And verse 15 doesn't redefine verse 10, it adds to it. Nothing says "sacrifice of praise" replaces the altar. It's an extra exhortation, right next to verse 16's " do good and share." Those are the fruits that come from having the altar, not a reinterpretation that cancels it out. You're treating two separate things, the altar-eating in v.10 and the praise sacrifice in v.15, like the second one swallows the first. Hebrews never says that.
You're looking at this passage with confirmation bias through your Orthodox lens, so you're reading it as a prescription for the New Covenant church to have the same system of temples, priests, altars, sacrifices, and the physical eating of the sacrifice that was characteristic of the Old Covenant. But this is completely missing the point the author is making, and is in fact going backwards from what the author intended. That old system is obsolete. There is NO MORE SACRIFICE. Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was the finished, once-for-all-time sacrifice for all sins, past, present and future. It completely eliminates the need for any further sacrifice."It is finished". Similarly, there is no more temple, because God now resides in the hearts of believers. There is no more organizational priesthood, because Jesus is now our one, true Priest who intercedes for us directly with God, and we are the "priesthood of believers". There is no more sacrificial "altar" to atone for our sins, because the final sacrifice has already been made. And there is no more literal, physical eating of the sacrifice - the "eating" is what we do when we, by believing in Jesus, gain spiritual sustenance leading to eternal life, which is superior to physical eating, which only gives us physical sustenance towards physical, temporal life. The point of Hebrews was to show that the New Covenant is made superior to the Old - the Old was only a type, a shadow of what was to come. The "altar" and "eating" language the author uses in this chapter in reference to the New Covenant is describing a new, higher, spiritual reality that is superior to the Old. The author is NOT making a one-to-one comparison with the Old Covenant to where the "eating" in the New is the same physical eating as in the Old, but rather a new, spiritual form of it.
Therefore, there is no need whatsoever for the communion bread and wine to contain the presence of Jesus in some "real" way in order for the communion "sacrifice" to be an actual, efficacious sacrifice. The efficacious sacrifice has already been completed. Jesus does not have to be "present" within the bread and wine of communion - he was present at the cross and that is all that was needed. The "Real Presence" of Jesus" in a repeated ceremonial sacrifice is a pure redundancy. And what's infinitely worse, it's actually a rejection of the finished work of Jesus on the cross. And this is what Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy formalize as dogma, a requirement for salvation. Absolutely incredible, and disgusting.
The fact that the author of Hebrews only tells us that the "eucharist" is a "sacrifice of praise"... never once mentioning anything about the sacrifice involving a kind of "real" presence within the communion bread and wine... is illustrative of all of this, and it completely invalidates your view. You're really reading HEAVILY your Orthodox theology into this passage, and your reasoning above is completely forced.
And it needs to be restated, that nowhere, not in Hebrews or anywhere else in Scripture are we told that if a believer takes communion as a symbol/memorial rather than as a "Real Presence", that there is any kind of loss for that believer, let alone salvation itself. A fact made evident by your complete failure to tell us what it is exactly that the believer misses out on. The Roman Catholics fail to do the same. Which reminds me to ask you again: if you really believe that Hebrews 13 and John 6 are telling you that "eating the sacrifice" is to be done in the same manner as in the Old Covenant.... then why aren't you holding to the Roman Catholic view?
Neither Orthodoxy nor Catholicism teaches Christ is sacrificed again at each liturgy. Hebrews itself says "once for all" (9:26-28), and Orthodox theology fully affirms that. What's claimed is that the one, finished sacrifice is made truly present and truly participated in at each Eucharist, not repeated, not added to, or improved on. You don't know our theology man. Seriously, this is basic stuff we don't believe…
On "no more altar, temple, priesthood," you're asserting all of that, but Hebrews itself doesn't erase this language, it keeps using it in the present tense about the church. "We have an altar" (13:10) is present tense, not "we used to have." If everything physical/institutional was dissolved into pure inward spirituality, why does the author keep reaching for priest, altar, sacrifice, blood language to describe what Christians presently have, rather than simply saying "you don't need any of that anymore"? You're reading your conclusion into the tense of the verbs.
You haven't shown me where the text itself says "eating" here means something non-physical. You've given me a theological system (finished sacrifice, priesthood of all believers, indwelling Spirit) and then used that system to tell me what "eat" must mean here. You're reading a system into a text.
Rome dogmatizes a specific philosophical mechanism, transubstantiation. They try to explain it scientifically and break it apart (that's nominalism btw). Orthodoxy affirms the reality of the change without dogmatizing the metaphysical mechanism, it's held as a mystery, not explained.
I did answer what's missed, repeatedly, real union with Christ's life, tied to actual resurrection (John 6:54), the actual participation Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 10:16. You calling that answer invisible doesn't make it invisible.
Nowhere did I say that RC/Orthodoxy "sacrifices again" in the Eucharist. What I said about their view, is clearly the official view of those churches: that the Eucharist is an actual, propitiatory sacrifice. Yes, I do know your theology. You should know by know that I'm not gonna claim things that I can't back up.
As I've clearly said, Hebrews isn't "erasing" the language of "altar", "priest", "temple", etc. it's elevating them to a new, superior form that is the ultimate realization of the Old Covenant types. Your problem is that you're still reading them through Old Covenant lenses.
On "eating" being figurative, rather than literal: you're missing the context that the author of Hebrews himself set up in the previous verse, where he says we are to be strengthened by grace, NOT by foods - in other words, by a spiritual, non-physical form of sustenance, i.e. "eating". The author is carrying over this same idea into his very next verse, where he says those Old Covenant Jews who reject Jesus have "no right" to "eat" this way because they rejected him. Even apart from this, the idea of a spiritual form of "eating" goes right along with the entire message of the book, which is that the Old Covenant types of of temples, priests, sacrifice, and "eating" have all now been realized in their new, superior, and spiritual form where their nature and significance have been perfected. It's hardly conceivable that this author of Hebrews would really be saying that physically putting something into our stomachs is this new and superior way we are reconciled with God.
And one only needs to look at Scripture to confirm all of this - the repeated declarations that salvation is by faith, that believing in Jesus from the heart is how one is justified, and in the direct examples where people were saved or told how to be saved, without physically eating a single thing, or told that they had to.
"I did answer what's missed, repeatedly" - and your answer is completely invalidated by Scripture. You can't even hold your answer consistent with your own theology. It falls apart every time the thief, sinful woman of Luke 7, and the house of Cornelius, none of whom ate anything, are brought up. It completely falls apart with Jesus words in John 6:40. Seriously - if you honestly believe that physically eating something is the way we receive the grace of salvation, then you simply do not understand the Gospel. It's a thinking like Nicodemus, when he tried to understand being "born again" in physical terms. It's a worrisome sign that you may have not truly been regenerated by the Spirit.
Faith is the necessary prerequisite to receive grace worthily. Paul explicitly says in 1 Corinthians 11 that eating without faith/discernment brings judgment, not magic salvation. Sacraments do not replace faith: they're the physical conduits through which God imparts grace to the faithful, just as Jesus used physical spit and mud to heal the blind man, or water in baptism (1 Peter 3:21).
How did the house of Cornelius get saved without receiving grace through the "physical conduit" of the Eucharist? Your view necessitates the belief that at the end of their story in the book of Acts, they were still not saved. And if you can't see how truly absurd that is, then your Orthodox tribalism has completely overtaken whatever rationality and logic you had.
Doc? How did the house of Cornelius get saved without receiving grace through the "physical conduit" of the Eucharist?
You really can't avoid this question, if your church's view is to be tenable.
Doc?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Oldbear83 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
BUDOS and OldBear,
The topic of this thread is about Mary, so why not a Mary question?
Do you believe that Roman Catholic and Orthodox prayers/liturgy to Mary which say the following:
" Most Holy Virgin Immaculate, my Mother Mary,
to you who are the Mother of my Lord, the Queen of the universe, the advocate,
the hope, and the refuge of sinners,
I venerate you, great Queen, and I thank you for the many graces
you have bestowed upon me even unto this day;
in particular for having delivered me from the hell
which I have so often deserved by my sins....
... I promise to serve you willingly for ever...
... I place in you all my hopes for salvation"
OR
"Mary is the propitiation of the whole world. Through Mary our sin is remitted."
"She is the gate of salvation."
"She is the provider of God's mercy."
"She taketh away the filth of sin."
"She is the salvation of my soul."
"She is the acceptable sacrifice."
.... do you believe that these prayers are idolatrous and heretical?
BUDOS and OldBear? What is your answer?
Answered, for my part, long ago. Beyond that I am giving you a time out.
Knowing your pattern, you probably "answered", but not what I'm asking. That's exactly what you did a few posts ago. So we all know this is BS.
What is your answer to my question? Why are you having such a hard time with it? It's either a "yes", a "no", or even a "I don't know". Those take fewer letters to type than the sentence you typed above.
Doc Holliday said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Oldbear83 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
BUDOS and OldBear,
The topic of this thread is about Mary, so why not a Mary question?
Do you believe that Roman Catholic and Orthodox prayers/liturgy to Mary which say the following:
" Most Holy Virgin Immaculate, my Mother Mary,
to you who are the Mother of my Lord, the Queen of the universe, the advocate,
the hope, and the refuge of sinners,
I venerate you, great Queen, and I thank you for the many graces
you have bestowed upon me even unto this day;
in particular for having delivered me from the hell
which I have so often deserved by my sins....
... I promise to serve you willingly for ever...
... I place in you all my hopes for salvation"
OR
"Mary is the propitiation of the whole world. Through Mary our sin is remitted."
"She is the gate of salvation."
"She is the provider of God's mercy."
"She taketh away the filth of sin."
"She is the salvation of my soul."
"She is the acceptable sacrifice."
.... do you believe that these prayers are idolatrous and heretical?
BUDOS and OldBear? What is your answer?
Answered, for my part, long ago. Beyond that I am giving you a time out.
Knowing your pattern, you probably "answered", but not what I'm asking. That's exactly what you did a few posts ago. So we all know this is BS.
What is your answer to my question? Why are you having such a hard time with it? It's either a "yes", a "no", or even a "I don't know". Those take fewer letters to type than the sentence you typed above.
Just FYI...nobody owes you a response. You're not in a position of authority or to be making demands.
Doc Holliday said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doc Holliday said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doc Holliday said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doc Holliday said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doc Holliday said:
Do ya'll understand Hebrews 13?
Paul is contrasting what we (Christians) eat at the altar, versus what the Jews eat at the tabernacle.
The Old Covenant priests ate from animal sacrifices at the tabernacle, that's the plain meaning of verses 10-11. Then verse 10 says "we have an altar from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat."
Then verse 15 says to "offer up a sacrifice of praise." The word there is eucharistia. It's not just "say thanks." In this context, surrounded by altar, sacrifice, blood, and priesthood language, it's ritual offering vocabulary. Paul isn't randomly switching from physical categories to a purely mental one mid-paragraph. He's naming the new sacrifice that replaces the old one.
The whole passage only makes sense as priesthood-to-priesthood, altar-to-altar, sacrifice-to-sacrifice, eating-to-eating. If the Christian side of that comparison is just an inward feeling of gratitude, the contrast falls apart and doesn't make sense, because you'd be comparing a real, physical, exclusionary system to something anyone can do regardless of church membership. That's not what the text sets up. It sets up two competing systems, and says ours is better and still ours to eat from.
Apparently, you do not understand Hebrews 13 at all.
NOTHING in Hebrews 13 says that the communion bread and wine are the "Real Presence" of Jesus, or that communion/the Eucharist is the replacement "ceremony" for the church that is the necessary means for us to receive some kind of grace. Where it says "those who serve the tent (Old Covenant Jews who still perform animal sacrifices) have no right to eat", the "eating" there is not literal. He's making the point that the New Covenant involves a higher form of "eating" that the Old Covenant Jews rejected. The "eating" isn't physical. This is made obvious by reading the verse immediately prior:
"... for it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by foods, which have not benefited those devoted to them."
The author clearly is setting up the meaning of "eating" in the following verse in the mind of the reader to convey something higher and more significant than the physical ingestion of food.
Verse 15, which you reference, perfectly illustrates how the author is elevating the concepts of "eating" and "sacrifice" to go BEYOND, not be identical to, their meaning in the Old Covenant way:
"Through him then let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that acknowledge his name. Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God."
It's really odd how you can read a verse thinking it makes your argument, when it completely destroys it. Clearly, this verse is saying that the "Eucharist" is NOT a sacrifice that involves the real, actual re-presentation of Jesus' sacrifice that is performed on an physical altar by human priests - but rather a "sacrifice" that comes from the heart of the believer in the form of thanksgiving, praise, obedience, and love for others. The very verse you offered as support for your view completely destroys it and fully supports the Protestant view instead.
Here is the outline: don't slide back into ceremonial food law (v.9), we have a real altar you don't have access to (v.10), pointing to Christ's sacrifice outside the camp (v.11-13), and because of that we also offer praise and good works (v.15-16). That's addition, not swap. You've got cause and effect flipped, treating our response to the altar as if it erases the altar.
You've got the logic backwards. Verse 9's "foods" isn't saying eating in general is now some metaphor, it's talking about Jewish food laws, same thing Hebrews 9:10 already covers, "foods and drinks and various washings." It's saying don't get sucked back into Mosaic dietary rules, not "eating doesn't mean eating anymore."
Then verse 10 switches to a totally different image: an altar. "We have an altar those who serve the tent have no right to eat from." That keeps going with real priestly language, actual animals, actual blood, an actual high priest, burned outside the camp. The whole passage is set up as a parallel, their altar and eating vs. our altar and eating. If you want "eat" to suddenly mean something non-physical only on our side, you have to show me that in the text. You're just asserting it and it doesn't make any sense.
And verse 15 doesn't redefine verse 10, it adds to it. Nothing says "sacrifice of praise" replaces the altar. It's an extra exhortation, right next to verse 16's " do good and share." Those are the fruits that come from having the altar, not a reinterpretation that cancels it out. You're treating two separate things, the altar-eating in v.10 and the praise sacrifice in v.15, like the second one swallows the first. Hebrews never says that.
You're looking at this passage with confirmation bias through your Orthodox lens, so you're reading it as a prescription for the New Covenant church to have the same system of temples, priests, altars, sacrifices, and the physical eating of the sacrifice that was characteristic of the Old Covenant. But this is completely missing the point the author is making, and is in fact going backwards from what the author intended. That old system is obsolete. There is NO MORE SACRIFICE. Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was the finished, once-for-all-time sacrifice for all sins, past, present and future. It completely eliminates the need for any further sacrifice."It is finished". Similarly, there is no more temple, because God now resides in the hearts of believers. There is no more organizational priesthood, because Jesus is now our one, true Priest who intercedes for us directly with God, and we are the "priesthood of believers". There is no more sacrificial "altar" to atone for our sins, because the final sacrifice has already been made. And there is no more literal, physical eating of the sacrifice - the "eating" is what we do when we, by believing in Jesus, gain spiritual sustenance leading to eternal life, which is superior to physical eating, which only gives us physical sustenance towards physical, temporal life. The point of Hebrews was to show that the New Covenant is made superior to the Old - the Old was only a type, a shadow of what was to come. The "altar" and "eating" language the author uses in this chapter in reference to the New Covenant is describing a new, higher, spiritual reality that is superior to the Old. The author is NOT making a one-to-one comparison with the Old Covenant to where the "eating" in the New is the same physical eating as in the Old, but rather a new, spiritual form of it.
Therefore, there is no need whatsoever for the communion bread and wine to contain the presence of Jesus in some "real" way in order for the communion "sacrifice" to be an actual, efficacious sacrifice. The efficacious sacrifice has already been completed. Jesus does not have to be "present" within the bread and wine of communion - he was present at the cross and that is all that was needed. The "Real Presence" of Jesus" in a repeated ceremonial sacrifice is a pure redundancy. And what's infinitely worse, it's actually a rejection of the finished work of Jesus on the cross. And this is what Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy formalize as dogma, a requirement for salvation. Absolutely incredible, and disgusting.
The fact that the author of Hebrews only tells us that the "eucharist" is a "sacrifice of praise"... never once mentioning anything about the sacrifice involving a kind of "real" presence within the communion bread and wine... is illustrative of all of this, and it completely invalidates your view. You're really reading HEAVILY your Orthodox theology into this passage, and your reasoning above is completely forced.
And it needs to be restated, that nowhere, not in Hebrews or anywhere else in Scripture are we told that if a believer takes communion as a symbol/memorial rather than as a "Real Presence", that there is any kind of loss for that believer, let alone salvation itself. A fact made evident by your complete failure to tell us what it is exactly that the believer misses out on. The Roman Catholics fail to do the same. Which reminds me to ask you again: if you really believe that Hebrews 13 and John 6 are telling you that "eating the sacrifice" is to be done in the same manner as in the Old Covenant.... then why aren't you holding to the Roman Catholic view?
Neither Orthodoxy nor Catholicism teaches Christ is sacrificed again at each liturgy. Hebrews itself says "once for all" (9:26-28), and Orthodox theology fully affirms that. What's claimed is that the one, finished sacrifice is made truly present and truly participated in at each Eucharist, not repeated, not added to, or improved on. You don't know our theology man. Seriously, this is basic stuff we don't believe…
On "no more altar, temple, priesthood," you're asserting all of that, but Hebrews itself doesn't erase this language, it keeps using it in the present tense about the church. "We have an altar" (13:10) is present tense, not "we used to have." If everything physical/institutional was dissolved into pure inward spirituality, why does the author keep reaching for priest, altar, sacrifice, blood language to describe what Christians presently have, rather than simply saying "you don't need any of that anymore"? You're reading your conclusion into the tense of the verbs.
You haven't shown me where the text itself says "eating" here means something non-physical. You've given me a theological system (finished sacrifice, priesthood of all believers, indwelling Spirit) and then used that system to tell me what "eat" must mean here. You're reading a system into a text.
Rome dogmatizes a specific philosophical mechanism, transubstantiation. They try to explain it scientifically and break it apart (that's nominalism btw). Orthodoxy affirms the reality of the change without dogmatizing the metaphysical mechanism, it's held as a mystery, not explained.
I did answer what's missed, repeatedly, real union with Christ's life, tied to actual resurrection (John 6:54), the actual participation Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 10:16. You calling that answer invisible doesn't make it invisible.
Nowhere did I say that RC/Orthodoxy "sacrifices again" in the Eucharist. What I said about their view, is clearly the official view of those churches: that the Eucharist is an actual, propitiatory sacrifice. Yes, I do know your theology. You should know by know that I'm not gonna claim things that I can't back up.
As I've clearly said, Hebrews isn't "erasing" the language of "altar", "priest", "temple", etc. it's elevating them to a new, superior form that is the ultimate realization of the Old Covenant types. Your problem is that you're still reading them through Old Covenant lenses.
On "eating" being figurative, rather than literal: you're missing the context that the author of Hebrews himself set up in the previous verse, where he says we are to be strengthened by grace, NOT by foods - in other words, by a spiritual, non-physical form of sustenance, i.e. "eating". The author is carrying over this same idea into his very next verse, where he says those Old Covenant Jews who reject Jesus have "no right" to "eat" this way because they rejected him. Even apart from this, the idea of a spiritual form of "eating" goes right along with the entire message of the book, which is that the Old Covenant types of of temples, priests, sacrifice, and "eating" have all now been realized in their new, superior, and spiritual form where their nature and significance have been perfected. It's hardly conceivable that this author of Hebrews would really be saying that physically putting something into our stomachs is this new and superior way we are reconciled with God.
And one only needs to look at Scripture to confirm all of this - the repeated declarations that salvation is by faith, that believing in Jesus from the heart is how one is justified, and in the direct examples where people were saved or told how to be saved, without physically eating a single thing, or told that they had to.
"I did answer what's missed, repeatedly" - and your answer is completely invalidated by Scripture. You can't even hold your answer consistent with your own theology. It falls apart every time the thief, sinful woman of Luke 7, and the house of Cornelius, none of whom ate anything, are brought up. It completely falls apart with Jesus words in John 6:40. Seriously - if you honestly believe that physically eating something is the way we receive the grace of salvation, then you simply do not understand the Gospel. It's a thinking like Nicodemus, when he tried to understand being "born again" in physical terms. It's a worrisome sign that you may have not truly been regenerated by the Spirit.
Faith is the necessary prerequisite to receive grace worthily. Paul explicitly says in 1 Corinthians 11 that eating without faith/discernment brings judgment, not magic salvation. Sacraments do not replace faith: they're the physical conduits through which God imparts grace to the faithful, just as Jesus used physical spit and mud to heal the blind man, or water in baptism (1 Peter 3:21).
How did the house of Cornelius get saved without receiving grace through the "physical conduit" of the Eucharist? Your view necessitates the belief that at the end of their story in the book of Acts, they were still not saved. And if you can't see how truly absurd that is, then your Orthodox tribalism has completely overtaken whatever rationality and logic you had.
Doc? How did the house of Cornelius get saved without receiving grace through the "physical conduit" of the Eucharist?
You really can't avoid this question, if your church's view is to be tenable.
Doc?
Let's get the correct understanding first. The Eucharist is a sacrificial meal. In the ancient biblical world, sacrifices were not about "paying off" God, nor were they legal check boxes, they were communal meals that sealed covenants and allowed human beings to participate in God's life.
Just as circumcision was the mark of covenant inclusion in the Old Testament...not a legal work that earned God's love, the Eucharist is the food of the New Covenant given to sustain those inside the household. FYI, we baptize infants as a new covenant inclusion...just like circumcision was.
.
God is not a lawyer managing transactional requirements (where missing the Eucharist damns you on a technicality). God is a Father restoring His creation through covenant. Cornelius was drawn in by the Spirit, but he was brought to the Table because that is where the Family eats. The Eucharist wasn't meant to be a transactional prerequisite that "allows" God to save someone. It is the food of the New Covenant given to those brought into the family.
Cornelius's initial experience of the Holy Spirit basically proved that God was cleansing the Gentiles. The Spirit falls first as a revelation, but the Spirit's very presence immediately demands that Cornelius be baptized into the physical body (Acts 10:47). That outpouring of grace didn't make the physical sacraments unnecessary, it was the divine directive bringing Cornelius into the sacramental life of the Church.
The way your interpret faith and sola fide requires you to adhere to transactional paradigm. You have no reason to adhere to sacraments because you deny that God can work through physical means.
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doc Holliday said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doc Holliday said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doc Holliday said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doc Holliday said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doc Holliday said:
Do ya'll understand Hebrews 13?
Paul is contrasting what we (Christians) eat at the altar, versus what the Jews eat at the tabernacle.
The Old Covenant priests ate from animal sacrifices at the tabernacle, that's the plain meaning of verses 10-11. Then verse 10 says "we have an altar from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat."
Then verse 15 says to "offer up a sacrifice of praise." The word there is eucharistia. It's not just "say thanks." In this context, surrounded by altar, sacrifice, blood, and priesthood language, it's ritual offering vocabulary. Paul isn't randomly switching from physical categories to a purely mental one mid-paragraph. He's naming the new sacrifice that replaces the old one.
The whole passage only makes sense as priesthood-to-priesthood, altar-to-altar, sacrifice-to-sacrifice, eating-to-eating. If the Christian side of that comparison is just an inward feeling of gratitude, the contrast falls apart and doesn't make sense, because you'd be comparing a real, physical, exclusionary system to something anyone can do regardless of church membership. That's not what the text sets up. It sets up two competing systems, and says ours is better and still ours to eat from.
Apparently, you do not understand Hebrews 13 at all.
NOTHING in Hebrews 13 says that the communion bread and wine are the "Real Presence" of Jesus, or that communion/the Eucharist is the replacement "ceremony" for the church that is the necessary means for us to receive some kind of grace. Where it says "those who serve the tent (Old Covenant Jews who still perform animal sacrifices) have no right to eat", the "eating" there is not literal. He's making the point that the New Covenant involves a higher form of "eating" that the Old Covenant Jews rejected. The "eating" isn't physical. This is made obvious by reading the verse immediately prior:
"... for it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by foods, which have not benefited those devoted to them."
The author clearly is setting up the meaning of "eating" in the following verse in the mind of the reader to convey something higher and more significant than the physical ingestion of food.
Verse 15, which you reference, perfectly illustrates how the author is elevating the concepts of "eating" and "sacrifice" to go BEYOND, not be identical to, their meaning in the Old Covenant way:
"Through him then let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that acknowledge his name. Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God."
It's really odd how you can read a verse thinking it makes your argument, when it completely destroys it. Clearly, this verse is saying that the "Eucharist" is NOT a sacrifice that involves the real, actual re-presentation of Jesus' sacrifice that is performed on an physical altar by human priests - but rather a "sacrifice" that comes from the heart of the believer in the form of thanksgiving, praise, obedience, and love for others. The very verse you offered as support for your view completely destroys it and fully supports the Protestant view instead.
Here is the outline: don't slide back into ceremonial food law (v.9), we have a real altar you don't have access to (v.10), pointing to Christ's sacrifice outside the camp (v.11-13), and because of that we also offer praise and good works (v.15-16). That's addition, not swap. You've got cause and effect flipped, treating our response to the altar as if it erases the altar.
You've got the logic backwards. Verse 9's "foods" isn't saying eating in general is now some metaphor, it's talking about Jewish food laws, same thing Hebrews 9:10 already covers, "foods and drinks and various washings." It's saying don't get sucked back into Mosaic dietary rules, not "eating doesn't mean eating anymore."
Then verse 10 switches to a totally different image: an altar. "We have an altar those who serve the tent have no right to eat from." That keeps going with real priestly language, actual animals, actual blood, an actual high priest, burned outside the camp. The whole passage is set up as a parallel, their altar and eating vs. our altar and eating. If you want "eat" to suddenly mean something non-physical only on our side, you have to show me that in the text. You're just asserting it and it doesn't make any sense.
And verse 15 doesn't redefine verse 10, it adds to it. Nothing says "sacrifice of praise" replaces the altar. It's an extra exhortation, right next to verse 16's " do good and share." Those are the fruits that come from having the altar, not a reinterpretation that cancels it out. You're treating two separate things, the altar-eating in v.10 and the praise sacrifice in v.15, like the second one swallows the first. Hebrews never says that.
You're looking at this passage with confirmation bias through your Orthodox lens, so you're reading it as a prescription for the New Covenant church to have the same system of temples, priests, altars, sacrifices, and the physical eating of the sacrifice that was characteristic of the Old Covenant. But this is completely missing the point the author is making, and is in fact going backwards from what the author intended. That old system is obsolete. There is NO MORE SACRIFICE. Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was the finished, once-for-all-time sacrifice for all sins, past, present and future. It completely eliminates the need for any further sacrifice."It is finished". Similarly, there is no more temple, because God now resides in the hearts of believers. There is no more organizational priesthood, because Jesus is now our one, true Priest who intercedes for us directly with God, and we are the "priesthood of believers". There is no more sacrificial "altar" to atone for our sins, because the final sacrifice has already been made. And there is no more literal, physical eating of the sacrifice - the "eating" is what we do when we, by believing in Jesus, gain spiritual sustenance leading to eternal life, which is superior to physical eating, which only gives us physical sustenance towards physical, temporal life. The point of Hebrews was to show that the New Covenant is made superior to the Old - the Old was only a type, a shadow of what was to come. The "altar" and "eating" language the author uses in this chapter in reference to the New Covenant is describing a new, higher, spiritual reality that is superior to the Old. The author is NOT making a one-to-one comparison with the Old Covenant to where the "eating" in the New is the same physical eating as in the Old, but rather a new, spiritual form of it.
Therefore, there is no need whatsoever for the communion bread and wine to contain the presence of Jesus in some "real" way in order for the communion "sacrifice" to be an actual, efficacious sacrifice. The efficacious sacrifice has already been completed. Jesus does not have to be "present" within the bread and wine of communion - he was present at the cross and that is all that was needed. The "Real Presence" of Jesus" in a repeated ceremonial sacrifice is a pure redundancy. And what's infinitely worse, it's actually a rejection of the finished work of Jesus on the cross. And this is what Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy formalize as dogma, a requirement for salvation. Absolutely incredible, and disgusting.
The fact that the author of Hebrews only tells us that the "eucharist" is a "sacrifice of praise"... never once mentioning anything about the sacrifice involving a kind of "real" presence within the communion bread and wine... is illustrative of all of this, and it completely invalidates your view. You're really reading HEAVILY your Orthodox theology into this passage, and your reasoning above is completely forced.
And it needs to be restated, that nowhere, not in Hebrews or anywhere else in Scripture are we told that if a believer takes communion as a symbol/memorial rather than as a "Real Presence", that there is any kind of loss for that believer, let alone salvation itself. A fact made evident by your complete failure to tell us what it is exactly that the believer misses out on. The Roman Catholics fail to do the same. Which reminds me to ask you again: if you really believe that Hebrews 13 and John 6 are telling you that "eating the sacrifice" is to be done in the same manner as in the Old Covenant.... then why aren't you holding to the Roman Catholic view?
Neither Orthodoxy nor Catholicism teaches Christ is sacrificed again at each liturgy. Hebrews itself says "once for all" (9:26-28), and Orthodox theology fully affirms that. What's claimed is that the one, finished sacrifice is made truly present and truly participated in at each Eucharist, not repeated, not added to, or improved on. You don't know our theology man. Seriously, this is basic stuff we don't believe…
On "no more altar, temple, priesthood," you're asserting all of that, but Hebrews itself doesn't erase this language, it keeps using it in the present tense about the church. "We have an altar" (13:10) is present tense, not "we used to have." If everything physical/institutional was dissolved into pure inward spirituality, why does the author keep reaching for priest, altar, sacrifice, blood language to describe what Christians presently have, rather than simply saying "you don't need any of that anymore"? You're reading your conclusion into the tense of the verbs.
You haven't shown me where the text itself says "eating" here means something non-physical. You've given me a theological system (finished sacrifice, priesthood of all believers, indwelling Spirit) and then used that system to tell me what "eat" must mean here. You're reading a system into a text.
Rome dogmatizes a specific philosophical mechanism, transubstantiation. They try to explain it scientifically and break it apart (that's nominalism btw). Orthodoxy affirms the reality of the change without dogmatizing the metaphysical mechanism, it's held as a mystery, not explained.
I did answer what's missed, repeatedly, real union with Christ's life, tied to actual resurrection (John 6:54), the actual participation Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 10:16. You calling that answer invisible doesn't make it invisible.
Nowhere did I say that RC/Orthodoxy "sacrifices again" in the Eucharist. What I said about their view, is clearly the official view of those churches: that the Eucharist is an actual, propitiatory sacrifice. Yes, I do know your theology. You should know by know that I'm not gonna claim things that I can't back up.
As I've clearly said, Hebrews isn't "erasing" the language of "altar", "priest", "temple", etc. it's elevating them to a new, superior form that is the ultimate realization of the Old Covenant types. Your problem is that you're still reading them through Old Covenant lenses.
On "eating" being figurative, rather than literal: you're missing the context that the author of Hebrews himself set up in the previous verse, where he says we are to be strengthened by grace, NOT by foods - in other words, by a spiritual, non-physical form of sustenance, i.e. "eating". The author is carrying over this same idea into his very next verse, where he says those Old Covenant Jews who reject Jesus have "no right" to "eat" this way because they rejected him. Even apart from this, the idea of a spiritual form of "eating" goes right along with the entire message of the book, which is that the Old Covenant types of of temples, priests, sacrifice, and "eating" have all now been realized in their new, superior, and spiritual form where their nature and significance have been perfected. It's hardly conceivable that this author of Hebrews would really be saying that physically putting something into our stomachs is this new and superior way we are reconciled with God.
And one only needs to look at Scripture to confirm all of this - the repeated declarations that salvation is by faith, that believing in Jesus from the heart is how one is justified, and in the direct examples where people were saved or told how to be saved, without physically eating a single thing, or told that they had to.
"I did answer what's missed, repeatedly" - and your answer is completely invalidated by Scripture. You can't even hold your answer consistent with your own theology. It falls apart every time the thief, sinful woman of Luke 7, and the house of Cornelius, none of whom ate anything, are brought up. It completely falls apart with Jesus words in John 6:40. Seriously - if you honestly believe that physically eating something is the way we receive the grace of salvation, then you simply do not understand the Gospel. It's a thinking like Nicodemus, when he tried to understand being "born again" in physical terms. It's a worrisome sign that you may have not truly been regenerated by the Spirit.
Faith is the necessary prerequisite to receive grace worthily. Paul explicitly says in 1 Corinthians 11 that eating without faith/discernment brings judgment, not magic salvation. Sacraments do not replace faith: they're the physical conduits through which God imparts grace to the faithful, just as Jesus used physical spit and mud to heal the blind man, or water in baptism (1 Peter 3:21).
How did the house of Cornelius get saved without receiving grace through the "physical conduit" of the Eucharist? Your view necessitates the belief that at the end of their story in the book of Acts, they were still not saved. And if you can't see how truly absurd that is, then your Orthodox tribalism has completely overtaken whatever rationality and logic you had.
Doc? How did the house of Cornelius get saved without receiving grace through the "physical conduit" of the Eucharist?
You really can't avoid this question, if your church's view is to be tenable.
Doc?
Let's get the correct understanding first. The Eucharist is a sacrificial meal. In the ancient biblical world, sacrifices were not about "paying off" God, nor were they legal check boxes, they were communal meals that sealed covenants and allowed human beings to participate in God's life.
Just as circumcision was the mark of covenant inclusion in the Old Testament...not a legal work that earned God's love, the Eucharist is the food of the New Covenant given to sustain those inside the household. FYI, we baptize infants as a new covenant inclusion...just like circumcision was.
.
God is not a lawyer managing transactional requirements (where missing the Eucharist damns you on a technicality). God is a Father restoring His creation through covenant. Cornelius was drawn in by the Spirit, but he was brought to the Table because that is where the Family eats. The Eucharist wasn't meant to be a transactional prerequisite that "allows" God to save someone. It is the food of the New Covenant given to those brought into the family.
Cornelius's initial experience of the Holy Spirit basically proved that God was cleansing the Gentiles. The Spirit falls first as a revelation, but the Spirit's very presence immediately demands that Cornelius be baptized into the physical body (Acts 10:47). That outpouring of grace didn't make the physical sacraments unnecessary, it was the divine directive bringing Cornelius into the sacramental life of the Church.
The way your interpret faith and sola fide requires you to adhere to transactional paradigm. You have no reason to adhere to sacraments because you deny that God can work through physical means.
But there is no answer here to my question. You stated that through the "physical conduit" of the Eucharist we receive grace, and you argued that this grace was "resurrection", i.e. salvation. So how did the house of Cornelius become saved without the Eucharist?
Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doc Holliday said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doc Holliday said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doc Holliday said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doc Holliday said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doc Holliday said:
Do ya'll understand Hebrews 13?
Paul is contrasting what we (Christians) eat at the altar, versus what the Jews eat at the tabernacle.
The Old Covenant priests ate from animal sacrifices at the tabernacle, that's the plain meaning of verses 10-11. Then verse 10 says "we have an altar from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat."
Then verse 15 says to "offer up a sacrifice of praise." The word there is eucharistia. It's not just "say thanks." In this context, surrounded by altar, sacrifice, blood, and priesthood language, it's ritual offering vocabulary. Paul isn't randomly switching from physical categories to a purely mental one mid-paragraph. He's naming the new sacrifice that replaces the old one.
The whole passage only makes sense as priesthood-to-priesthood, altar-to-altar, sacrifice-to-sacrifice, eating-to-eating. If the Christian side of that comparison is just an inward feeling of gratitude, the contrast falls apart and doesn't make sense, because you'd be comparing a real, physical, exclusionary system to something anyone can do regardless of church membership. That's not what the text sets up. It sets up two competing systems, and says ours is better and still ours to eat from.
Apparently, you do not understand Hebrews 13 at all.
NOTHING in Hebrews 13 says that the communion bread and wine are the "Real Presence" of Jesus, or that communion/the Eucharist is the replacement "ceremony" for the church that is the necessary means for us to receive some kind of grace. Where it says "those who serve the tent (Old Covenant Jews who still perform animal sacrifices) have no right to eat", the "eating" there is not literal. He's making the point that the New Covenant involves a higher form of "eating" that the Old Covenant Jews rejected. The "eating" isn't physical. This is made obvious by reading the verse immediately prior:
"... for it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by foods, which have not benefited those devoted to them."
The author clearly is setting up the meaning of "eating" in the following verse in the mind of the reader to convey something higher and more significant than the physical ingestion of food.
Verse 15, which you reference, perfectly illustrates how the author is elevating the concepts of "eating" and "sacrifice" to go BEYOND, not be identical to, their meaning in the Old Covenant way:
"Through him then let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that acknowledge his name. Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God."
It's really odd how you can read a verse thinking it makes your argument, when it completely destroys it. Clearly, this verse is saying that the "Eucharist" is NOT a sacrifice that involves the real, actual re-presentation of Jesus' sacrifice that is performed on an physical altar by human priests - but rather a "sacrifice" that comes from the heart of the believer in the form of thanksgiving, praise, obedience, and love for others. The very verse you offered as support for your view completely destroys it and fully supports the Protestant view instead.
Here is the outline: don't slide back into ceremonial food law (v.9), we have a real altar you don't have access to (v.10), pointing to Christ's sacrifice outside the camp (v.11-13), and because of that we also offer praise and good works (v.15-16). That's addition, not swap. You've got cause and effect flipped, treating our response to the altar as if it erases the altar.
You've got the logic backwards. Verse 9's "foods" isn't saying eating in general is now some metaphor, it's talking about Jewish food laws, same thing Hebrews 9:10 already covers, "foods and drinks and various washings." It's saying don't get sucked back into Mosaic dietary rules, not "eating doesn't mean eating anymore."
Then verse 10 switches to a totally different image: an altar. "We have an altar those who serve the tent have no right to eat from." That keeps going with real priestly language, actual animals, actual blood, an actual high priest, burned outside the camp. The whole passage is set up as a parallel, their altar and eating vs. our altar and eating. If you want "eat" to suddenly mean something non-physical only on our side, you have to show me that in the text. You're just asserting it and it doesn't make any sense.
And verse 15 doesn't redefine verse 10, it adds to it. Nothing says "sacrifice of praise" replaces the altar. It's an extra exhortation, right next to verse 16's " do good and share." Those are the fruits that come from having the altar, not a reinterpretation that cancels it out. You're treating two separate things, the altar-eating in v.10 and the praise sacrifice in v.15, like the second one swallows the first. Hebrews never says that.
You're looking at this passage with confirmation bias through your Orthodox lens, so you're reading it as a prescription for the New Covenant church to have the same system of temples, priests, altars, sacrifices, and the physical eating of the sacrifice that was characteristic of the Old Covenant. But this is completely missing the point the author is making, and is in fact going backwards from what the author intended. That old system is obsolete. There is NO MORE SACRIFICE. Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was the finished, once-for-all-time sacrifice for all sins, past, present and future. It completely eliminates the need for any further sacrifice."It is finished". Similarly, there is no more temple, because God now resides in the hearts of believers. There is no more organizational priesthood, because Jesus is now our one, true Priest who intercedes for us directly with God, and we are the "priesthood of believers". There is no more sacrificial "altar" to atone for our sins, because the final sacrifice has already been made. And there is no more literal, physical eating of the sacrifice - the "eating" is what we do when we, by believing in Jesus, gain spiritual sustenance leading to eternal life, which is superior to physical eating, which only gives us physical sustenance towards physical, temporal life. The point of Hebrews was to show that the New Covenant is made superior to the Old - the Old was only a type, a shadow of what was to come. The "altar" and "eating" language the author uses in this chapter in reference to the New Covenant is describing a new, higher, spiritual reality that is superior to the Old. The author is NOT making a one-to-one comparison with the Old Covenant to where the "eating" in the New is the same physical eating as in the Old, but rather a new, spiritual form of it.
Therefore, there is no need whatsoever for the communion bread and wine to contain the presence of Jesus in some "real" way in order for the communion "sacrifice" to be an actual, efficacious sacrifice. The efficacious sacrifice has already been completed. Jesus does not have to be "present" within the bread and wine of communion - he was present at the cross and that is all that was needed. The "Real Presence" of Jesus" in a repeated ceremonial sacrifice is a pure redundancy. And what's infinitely worse, it's actually a rejection of the finished work of Jesus on the cross. And this is what Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy formalize as dogma, a requirement for salvation. Absolutely incredible, and disgusting.
The fact that the author of Hebrews only tells us that the "eucharist" is a "sacrifice of praise"... never once mentioning anything about the sacrifice involving a kind of "real" presence within the communion bread and wine... is illustrative of all of this, and it completely invalidates your view. You're really reading HEAVILY your Orthodox theology into this passage, and your reasoning above is completely forced.
And it needs to be restated, that nowhere, not in Hebrews or anywhere else in Scripture are we told that if a believer takes communion as a symbol/memorial rather than as a "Real Presence", that there is any kind of loss for that believer, let alone salvation itself. A fact made evident by your complete failure to tell us what it is exactly that the believer misses out on. The Roman Catholics fail to do the same. Which reminds me to ask you again: if you really believe that Hebrews 13 and John 6 are telling you that "eating the sacrifice" is to be done in the same manner as in the Old Covenant.... then why aren't you holding to the Roman Catholic view?
Neither Orthodoxy nor Catholicism teaches Christ is sacrificed again at each liturgy. Hebrews itself says "once for all" (9:26-28), and Orthodox theology fully affirms that. What's claimed is that the one, finished sacrifice is made truly present and truly participated in at each Eucharist, not repeated, not added to, or improved on. You don't know our theology man. Seriously, this is basic stuff we don't believe…
On "no more altar, temple, priesthood," you're asserting all of that, but Hebrews itself doesn't erase this language, it keeps using it in the present tense about the church. "We have an altar" (13:10) is present tense, not "we used to have." If everything physical/institutional was dissolved into pure inward spirituality, why does the author keep reaching for priest, altar, sacrifice, blood language to describe what Christians presently have, rather than simply saying "you don't need any of that anymore"? You're reading your conclusion into the tense of the verbs.
You haven't shown me where the text itself says "eating" here means something non-physical. You've given me a theological system (finished sacrifice, priesthood of all believers, indwelling Spirit) and then used that system to tell me what "eat" must mean here. You're reading a system into a text.
Rome dogmatizes a specific philosophical mechanism, transubstantiation. They try to explain it scientifically and break it apart (that's nominalism btw). Orthodoxy affirms the reality of the change without dogmatizing the metaphysical mechanism, it's held as a mystery, not explained.
I did answer what's missed, repeatedly, real union with Christ's life, tied to actual resurrection (John 6:54), the actual participation Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 10:16. You calling that answer invisible doesn't make it invisible.
Nowhere did I say that RC/Orthodoxy "sacrifices again" in the Eucharist. What I said about their view, is clearly the official view of those churches: that the Eucharist is an actual, propitiatory sacrifice. Yes, I do know your theology. You should know by know that I'm not gonna claim things that I can't back up.
As I've clearly said, Hebrews isn't "erasing" the language of "altar", "priest", "temple", etc. it's elevating them to a new, superior form that is the ultimate realization of the Old Covenant types. Your problem is that you're still reading them through Old Covenant lenses.
On "eating" being figurative, rather than literal: you're missing the context that the author of Hebrews himself set up in the previous verse, where he says we are to be strengthened by grace, NOT by foods - in other words, by a spiritual, non-physical form of sustenance, i.e. "eating". The author is carrying over this same idea into his very next verse, where he says those Old Covenant Jews who reject Jesus have "no right" to "eat" this way because they rejected him. Even apart from this, the idea of a spiritual form of "eating" goes right along with the entire message of the book, which is that the Old Covenant types of of temples, priests, sacrifice, and "eating" have all now been realized in their new, superior, and spiritual form where their nature and significance have been perfected. It's hardly conceivable that this author of Hebrews would really be saying that physically putting something into our stomachs is this new and superior way we are reconciled with God.
And one only needs to look at Scripture to confirm all of this - the repeated declarations that salvation is by faith, that believing in Jesus from the heart is how one is justified, and in the direct examples where people were saved or told how to be saved, without physically eating a single thing, or told that they had to.
"I did answer what's missed, repeatedly" - and your answer is completely invalidated by Scripture. You can't even hold your answer consistent with your own theology. It falls apart every time the thief, sinful woman of Luke 7, and the house of Cornelius, none of whom ate anything, are brought up. It completely falls apart with Jesus words in John 6:40. Seriously - if you honestly believe that physically eating something is the way we receive the grace of salvation, then you simply do not understand the Gospel. It's a thinking like Nicodemus, when he tried to understand being "born again" in physical terms. It's a worrisome sign that you may have not truly been regenerated by the Spirit.
Faith is the necessary prerequisite to receive grace worthily. Paul explicitly says in 1 Corinthians 11 that eating without faith/discernment brings judgment, not magic salvation. Sacraments do not replace faith: they're the physical conduits through which God imparts grace to the faithful, just as Jesus used physical spit and mud to heal the blind man, or water in baptism (1 Peter 3:21).
How did the house of Cornelius get saved without receiving grace through the "physical conduit" of the Eucharist? Your view necessitates the belief that at the end of their story in the book of Acts, they were still not saved. And if you can't see how truly absurd that is, then your Orthodox tribalism has completely overtaken whatever rationality and logic you had.
Doc? How did the house of Cornelius get saved without receiving grace through the "physical conduit" of the Eucharist?
You really can't avoid this question, if your church's view is to be tenable.
Doc?
Let's get the correct understanding first. The Eucharist is a sacrificial meal. In the ancient biblical world, sacrifices were not about "paying off" God, nor were they legal check boxes, they were communal meals that sealed covenants and allowed human beings to participate in God's life.
Just as circumcision was the mark of covenant inclusion in the Old Testament...not a legal work that earned God's love, the Eucharist is the food of the New Covenant given to sustain those inside the household. FYI, we baptize infants as a new covenant inclusion...just like circumcision was.
.
God is not a lawyer managing transactional requirements (where missing the Eucharist damns you on a technicality). God is a Father restoring His creation through covenant. Cornelius was drawn in by the Spirit, but he was brought to the Table because that is where the Family eats. The Eucharist wasn't meant to be a transactional prerequisite that "allows" God to save someone. It is the food of the New Covenant given to those brought into the family.
Cornelius's initial experience of the Holy Spirit basically proved that God was cleansing the Gentiles. The Spirit falls first as a revelation, but the Spirit's very presence immediately demands that Cornelius be baptized into the physical body (Acts 10:47). That outpouring of grace didn't make the physical sacraments unnecessary, it was the divine directive bringing Cornelius into the sacramental life of the Church.
The way your interpret faith and sola fide requires you to adhere to transactional paradigm. You have no reason to adhere to sacraments because you deny that God can work through physical means.
But there is no answer here to my question. You stated that through the "physical conduit" of the Eucharist we receive grace, and you argued that this grace was "resurrection", i.e. salvation. So how did the house of Cornelius become saved without the Eucharist?
This isn't really about the Eucharist. What did Jesus mean when he said, "If any man has a mind to come my way, let him renounce self, and take up his cross, and follow me?"
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doc Holliday said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doc Holliday said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doc Holliday said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doc Holliday said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doc Holliday said:
Do ya'll understand Hebrews 13?
Paul is contrasting what we (Christians) eat at the altar, versus what the Jews eat at the tabernacle.
The Old Covenant priests ate from animal sacrifices at the tabernacle, that's the plain meaning of verses 10-11. Then verse 10 says "we have an altar from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat."
Then verse 15 says to "offer up a sacrifice of praise." The word there is eucharistia. It's not just "say thanks." In this context, surrounded by altar, sacrifice, blood, and priesthood language, it's ritual offering vocabulary. Paul isn't randomly switching from physical categories to a purely mental one mid-paragraph. He's naming the new sacrifice that replaces the old one.
The whole passage only makes sense as priesthood-to-priesthood, altar-to-altar, sacrifice-to-sacrifice, eating-to-eating. If the Christian side of that comparison is just an inward feeling of gratitude, the contrast falls apart and doesn't make sense, because you'd be comparing a real, physical, exclusionary system to something anyone can do regardless of church membership. That's not what the text sets up. It sets up two competing systems, and says ours is better and still ours to eat from.
Apparently, you do not understand Hebrews 13 at all.
NOTHING in Hebrews 13 says that the communion bread and wine are the "Real Presence" of Jesus, or that communion/the Eucharist is the replacement "ceremony" for the church that is the necessary means for us to receive some kind of grace. Where it says "those who serve the tent (Old Covenant Jews who still perform animal sacrifices) have no right to eat", the "eating" there is not literal. He's making the point that the New Covenant involves a higher form of "eating" that the Old Covenant Jews rejected. The "eating" isn't physical. This is made obvious by reading the verse immediately prior:
"... for it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by foods, which have not benefited those devoted to them."
The author clearly is setting up the meaning of "eating" in the following verse in the mind of the reader to convey something higher and more significant than the physical ingestion of food.
Verse 15, which you reference, perfectly illustrates how the author is elevating the concepts of "eating" and "sacrifice" to go BEYOND, not be identical to, their meaning in the Old Covenant way:
"Through him then let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that acknowledge his name. Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God."
It's really odd how you can read a verse thinking it makes your argument, when it completely destroys it. Clearly, this verse is saying that the "Eucharist" is NOT a sacrifice that involves the real, actual re-presentation of Jesus' sacrifice that is performed on an physical altar by human priests - but rather a "sacrifice" that comes from the heart of the believer in the form of thanksgiving, praise, obedience, and love for others. The very verse you offered as support for your view completely destroys it and fully supports the Protestant view instead.
Here is the outline: don't slide back into ceremonial food law (v.9), we have a real altar you don't have access to (v.10), pointing to Christ's sacrifice outside the camp (v.11-13), and because of that we also offer praise and good works (v.15-16). That's addition, not swap. You've got cause and effect flipped, treating our response to the altar as if it erases the altar.
You've got the logic backwards. Verse 9's "foods" isn't saying eating in general is now some metaphor, it's talking about Jewish food laws, same thing Hebrews 9:10 already covers, "foods and drinks and various washings." It's saying don't get sucked back into Mosaic dietary rules, not "eating doesn't mean eating anymore."
Then verse 10 switches to a totally different image: an altar. "We have an altar those who serve the tent have no right to eat from." That keeps going with real priestly language, actual animals, actual blood, an actual high priest, burned outside the camp. The whole passage is set up as a parallel, their altar and eating vs. our altar and eating. If you want "eat" to suddenly mean something non-physical only on our side, you have to show me that in the text. You're just asserting it and it doesn't make any sense.
And verse 15 doesn't redefine verse 10, it adds to it. Nothing says "sacrifice of praise" replaces the altar. It's an extra exhortation, right next to verse 16's " do good and share." Those are the fruits that come from having the altar, not a reinterpretation that cancels it out. You're treating two separate things, the altar-eating in v.10 and the praise sacrifice in v.15, like the second one swallows the first. Hebrews never says that.
You're looking at this passage with confirmation bias through your Orthodox lens, so you're reading it as a prescription for the New Covenant church to have the same system of temples, priests, altars, sacrifices, and the physical eating of the sacrifice that was characteristic of the Old Covenant. But this is completely missing the point the author is making, and is in fact going backwards from what the author intended. That old system is obsolete. There is NO MORE SACRIFICE. Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was the finished, once-for-all-time sacrifice for all sins, past, present and future. It completely eliminates the need for any further sacrifice."It is finished". Similarly, there is no more temple, because God now resides in the hearts of believers. There is no more organizational priesthood, because Jesus is now our one, true Priest who intercedes for us directly with God, and we are the "priesthood of believers". There is no more sacrificial "altar" to atone for our sins, because the final sacrifice has already been made. And there is no more literal, physical eating of the sacrifice - the "eating" is what we do when we, by believing in Jesus, gain spiritual sustenance leading to eternal life, which is superior to physical eating, which only gives us physical sustenance towards physical, temporal life. The point of Hebrews was to show that the New Covenant is made superior to the Old - the Old was only a type, a shadow of what was to come. The "altar" and "eating" language the author uses in this chapter in reference to the New Covenant is describing a new, higher, spiritual reality that is superior to the Old. The author is NOT making a one-to-one comparison with the Old Covenant to where the "eating" in the New is the same physical eating as in the Old, but rather a new, spiritual form of it.
Therefore, there is no need whatsoever for the communion bread and wine to contain the presence of Jesus in some "real" way in order for the communion "sacrifice" to be an actual, efficacious sacrifice. The efficacious sacrifice has already been completed. Jesus does not have to be "present" within the bread and wine of communion - he was present at the cross and that is all that was needed. The "Real Presence" of Jesus" in a repeated ceremonial sacrifice is a pure redundancy. And what's infinitely worse, it's actually a rejection of the finished work of Jesus on the cross. And this is what Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy formalize as dogma, a requirement for salvation. Absolutely incredible, and disgusting.
The fact that the author of Hebrews only tells us that the "eucharist" is a "sacrifice of praise"... never once mentioning anything about the sacrifice involving a kind of "real" presence within the communion bread and wine... is illustrative of all of this, and it completely invalidates your view. You're really reading HEAVILY your Orthodox theology into this passage, and your reasoning above is completely forced.
And it needs to be restated, that nowhere, not in Hebrews or anywhere else in Scripture are we told that if a believer takes communion as a symbol/memorial rather than as a "Real Presence", that there is any kind of loss for that believer, let alone salvation itself. A fact made evident by your complete failure to tell us what it is exactly that the believer misses out on. The Roman Catholics fail to do the same. Which reminds me to ask you again: if you really believe that Hebrews 13 and John 6 are telling you that "eating the sacrifice" is to be done in the same manner as in the Old Covenant.... then why aren't you holding to the Roman Catholic view?
Neither Orthodoxy nor Catholicism teaches Christ is sacrificed again at each liturgy. Hebrews itself says "once for all" (9:26-28), and Orthodox theology fully affirms that. What's claimed is that the one, finished sacrifice is made truly present and truly participated in at each Eucharist, not repeated, not added to, or improved on. You don't know our theology man. Seriously, this is basic stuff we don't believe…
On "no more altar, temple, priesthood," you're asserting all of that, but Hebrews itself doesn't erase this language, it keeps using it in the present tense about the church. "We have an altar" (13:10) is present tense, not "we used to have." If everything physical/institutional was dissolved into pure inward spirituality, why does the author keep reaching for priest, altar, sacrifice, blood language to describe what Christians presently have, rather than simply saying "you don't need any of that anymore"? You're reading your conclusion into the tense of the verbs.
You haven't shown me where the text itself says "eating" here means something non-physical. You've given me a theological system (finished sacrifice, priesthood of all believers, indwelling Spirit) and then used that system to tell me what "eat" must mean here. You're reading a system into a text.
Rome dogmatizes a specific philosophical mechanism, transubstantiation. They try to explain it scientifically and break it apart (that's nominalism btw). Orthodoxy affirms the reality of the change without dogmatizing the metaphysical mechanism, it's held as a mystery, not explained.
I did answer what's missed, repeatedly, real union with Christ's life, tied to actual resurrection (John 6:54), the actual participation Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 10:16. You calling that answer invisible doesn't make it invisible.
Nowhere did I say that RC/Orthodoxy "sacrifices again" in the Eucharist. What I said about their view, is clearly the official view of those churches: that the Eucharist is an actual, propitiatory sacrifice. Yes, I do know your theology. You should know by know that I'm not gonna claim things that I can't back up.
As I've clearly said, Hebrews isn't "erasing" the language of "altar", "priest", "temple", etc. it's elevating them to a new, superior form that is the ultimate realization of the Old Covenant types. Your problem is that you're still reading them through Old Covenant lenses.
On "eating" being figurative, rather than literal: you're missing the context that the author of Hebrews himself set up in the previous verse, where he says we are to be strengthened by grace, NOT by foods - in other words, by a spiritual, non-physical form of sustenance, i.e. "eating". The author is carrying over this same idea into his very next verse, where he says those Old Covenant Jews who reject Jesus have "no right" to "eat" this way because they rejected him. Even apart from this, the idea of a spiritual form of "eating" goes right along with the entire message of the book, which is that the Old Covenant types of of temples, priests, sacrifice, and "eating" have all now been realized in their new, superior, and spiritual form where their nature and significance have been perfected. It's hardly conceivable that this author of Hebrews would really be saying that physically putting something into our stomachs is this new and superior way we are reconciled with God.
And one only needs to look at Scripture to confirm all of this - the repeated declarations that salvation is by faith, that believing in Jesus from the heart is how one is justified, and in the direct examples where people were saved or told how to be saved, without physically eating a single thing, or told that they had to.
"I did answer what's missed, repeatedly" - and your answer is completely invalidated by Scripture. You can't even hold your answer consistent with your own theology. It falls apart every time the thief, sinful woman of Luke 7, and the house of Cornelius, none of whom ate anything, are brought up. It completely falls apart with Jesus words in John 6:40. Seriously - if you honestly believe that physically eating something is the way we receive the grace of salvation, then you simply do not understand the Gospel. It's a thinking like Nicodemus, when he tried to understand being "born again" in physical terms. It's a worrisome sign that you may have not truly been regenerated by the Spirit.
Faith is the necessary prerequisite to receive grace worthily. Paul explicitly says in 1 Corinthians 11 that eating without faith/discernment brings judgment, not magic salvation. Sacraments do not replace faith: they're the physical conduits through which God imparts grace to the faithful, just as Jesus used physical spit and mud to heal the blind man, or water in baptism (1 Peter 3:21).
How did the house of Cornelius get saved without receiving grace through the "physical conduit" of the Eucharist? Your view necessitates the belief that at the end of their story in the book of Acts, they were still not saved. And if you can't see how truly absurd that is, then your Orthodox tribalism has completely overtaken whatever rationality and logic you had.
Doc? How did the house of Cornelius get saved without receiving grace through the "physical conduit" of the Eucharist?
You really can't avoid this question, if your church's view is to be tenable.
Doc?
Let's get the correct understanding first. The Eucharist is a sacrificial meal. In the ancient biblical world, sacrifices were not about "paying off" God, nor were they legal check boxes, they were communal meals that sealed covenants and allowed human beings to participate in God's life.
Just as circumcision was the mark of covenant inclusion in the Old Testament...not a legal work that earned God's love, the Eucharist is the food of the New Covenant given to sustain those inside the household. FYI, we baptize infants as a new covenant inclusion...just like circumcision was.
.
God is not a lawyer managing transactional requirements (where missing the Eucharist damns you on a technicality). God is a Father restoring His creation through covenant. Cornelius was drawn in by the Spirit, but he was brought to the Table because that is where the Family eats. The Eucharist wasn't meant to be a transactional prerequisite that "allows" God to save someone. It is the food of the New Covenant given to those brought into the family.
Cornelius's initial experience of the Holy Spirit basically proved that God was cleansing the Gentiles. The Spirit falls first as a revelation, but the Spirit's very presence immediately demands that Cornelius be baptized into the physical body (Acts 10:47). That outpouring of grace didn't make the physical sacraments unnecessary, it was the divine directive bringing Cornelius into the sacramental life of the Church.
The way your interpret faith and sola fide requires you to adhere to transactional paradigm. You have no reason to adhere to sacraments because you deny that God can work through physical means.
But there is no answer here to my question. You stated that through the "physical conduit" of the Eucharist we receive grace, and you argued that this grace was "resurrection", i.e. salvation. So how did the house of Cornelius become saved without the Eucharist?
This isn't really about the Eucharist. What did Jesus mean when he said, "If any man has a mind to come my way, let him renounce self, and take up his cross, and follow me?"
What DID Jesus mean in that verse you referenced? Do you think he was talking about salvation? If so, then how did the house of Cornelius get saved without denying themselves and "taking up their cross"? How did the thief on the cross?
Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doc Holliday said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doc Holliday said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doc Holliday said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doc Holliday said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doc Holliday said:
Do ya'll understand Hebrews 13?
Paul is contrasting what we (Christians) eat at the altar, versus what the Jews eat at the tabernacle.
The Old Covenant priests ate from animal sacrifices at the tabernacle, that's the plain meaning of verses 10-11. Then verse 10 says "we have an altar from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat."
Then verse 15 says to "offer up a sacrifice of praise." The word there is eucharistia. It's not just "say thanks." In this context, surrounded by altar, sacrifice, blood, and priesthood language, it's ritual offering vocabulary. Paul isn't randomly switching from physical categories to a purely mental one mid-paragraph. He's naming the new sacrifice that replaces the old one.
The whole passage only makes sense as priesthood-to-priesthood, altar-to-altar, sacrifice-to-sacrifice, eating-to-eating. If the Christian side of that comparison is just an inward feeling of gratitude, the contrast falls apart and doesn't make sense, because you'd be comparing a real, physical, exclusionary system to something anyone can do regardless of church membership. That's not what the text sets up. It sets up two competing systems, and says ours is better and still ours to eat from.
Apparently, you do not understand Hebrews 13 at all.
NOTHING in Hebrews 13 says that the communion bread and wine are the "Real Presence" of Jesus, or that communion/the Eucharist is the replacement "ceremony" for the church that is the necessary means for us to receive some kind of grace. Where it says "those who serve the tent (Old Covenant Jews who still perform animal sacrifices) have no right to eat", the "eating" there is not literal. He's making the point that the New Covenant involves a higher form of "eating" that the Old Covenant Jews rejected. The "eating" isn't physical. This is made obvious by reading the verse immediately prior:
"... for it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by foods, which have not benefited those devoted to them."
The author clearly is setting up the meaning of "eating" in the following verse in the mind of the reader to convey something higher and more significant than the physical ingestion of food.
Verse 15, which you reference, perfectly illustrates how the author is elevating the concepts of "eating" and "sacrifice" to go BEYOND, not be identical to, their meaning in the Old Covenant way:
"Through him then let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that acknowledge his name. Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God."
It's really odd how you can read a verse thinking it makes your argument, when it completely destroys it. Clearly, this verse is saying that the "Eucharist" is NOT a sacrifice that involves the real, actual re-presentation of Jesus' sacrifice that is performed on an physical altar by human priests - but rather a "sacrifice" that comes from the heart of the believer in the form of thanksgiving, praise, obedience, and love for others. The very verse you offered as support for your view completely destroys it and fully supports the Protestant view instead.
Here is the outline: don't slide back into ceremonial food law (v.9), we have a real altar you don't have access to (v.10), pointing to Christ's sacrifice outside the camp (v.11-13), and because of that we also offer praise and good works (v.15-16). That's addition, not swap. You've got cause and effect flipped, treating our response to the altar as if it erases the altar.
You've got the logic backwards. Verse 9's "foods" isn't saying eating in general is now some metaphor, it's talking about Jewish food laws, same thing Hebrews 9:10 already covers, "foods and drinks and various washings." It's saying don't get sucked back into Mosaic dietary rules, not "eating doesn't mean eating anymore."
Then verse 10 switches to a totally different image: an altar. "We have an altar those who serve the tent have no right to eat from." That keeps going with real priestly language, actual animals, actual blood, an actual high priest, burned outside the camp. The whole passage is set up as a parallel, their altar and eating vs. our altar and eating. If you want "eat" to suddenly mean something non-physical only on our side, you have to show me that in the text. You're just asserting it and it doesn't make any sense.
And verse 15 doesn't redefine verse 10, it adds to it. Nothing says "sacrifice of praise" replaces the altar. It's an extra exhortation, right next to verse 16's " do good and share." Those are the fruits that come from having the altar, not a reinterpretation that cancels it out. You're treating two separate things, the altar-eating in v.10 and the praise sacrifice in v.15, like the second one swallows the first. Hebrews never says that.
You're looking at this passage with confirmation bias through your Orthodox lens, so you're reading it as a prescription for the New Covenant church to have the same system of temples, priests, altars, sacrifices, and the physical eating of the sacrifice that was characteristic of the Old Covenant. But this is completely missing the point the author is making, and is in fact going backwards from what the author intended. That old system is obsolete. There is NO MORE SACRIFICE. Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was the finished, once-for-all-time sacrifice for all sins, past, present and future. It completely eliminates the need for any further sacrifice."It is finished". Similarly, there is no more temple, because God now resides in the hearts of believers. There is no more organizational priesthood, because Jesus is now our one, true Priest who intercedes for us directly with God, and we are the "priesthood of believers". There is no more sacrificial "altar" to atone for our sins, because the final sacrifice has already been made. And there is no more literal, physical eating of the sacrifice - the "eating" is what we do when we, by believing in Jesus, gain spiritual sustenance leading to eternal life, which is superior to physical eating, which only gives us physical sustenance towards physical, temporal life. The point of Hebrews was to show that the New Covenant is made superior to the Old - the Old was only a type, a shadow of what was to come. The "altar" and "eating" language the author uses in this chapter in reference to the New Covenant is describing a new, higher, spiritual reality that is superior to the Old. The author is NOT making a one-to-one comparison with the Old Covenant to where the "eating" in the New is the same physical eating as in the Old, but rather a new, spiritual form of it.
Therefore, there is no need whatsoever for the communion bread and wine to contain the presence of Jesus in some "real" way in order for the communion "sacrifice" to be an actual, efficacious sacrifice. The efficacious sacrifice has already been completed. Jesus does not have to be "present" within the bread and wine of communion - he was present at the cross and that is all that was needed. The "Real Presence" of Jesus" in a repeated ceremonial sacrifice is a pure redundancy. And what's infinitely worse, it's actually a rejection of the finished work of Jesus on the cross. And this is what Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy formalize as dogma, a requirement for salvation. Absolutely incredible, and disgusting.
The fact that the author of Hebrews only tells us that the "eucharist" is a "sacrifice of praise"... never once mentioning anything about the sacrifice involving a kind of "real" presence within the communion bread and wine... is illustrative of all of this, and it completely invalidates your view. You're really reading HEAVILY your Orthodox theology into this passage, and your reasoning above is completely forced.
And it needs to be restated, that nowhere, not in Hebrews or anywhere else in Scripture are we told that if a believer takes communion as a symbol/memorial rather than as a "Real Presence", that there is any kind of loss for that believer, let alone salvation itself. A fact made evident by your complete failure to tell us what it is exactly that the believer misses out on. The Roman Catholics fail to do the same. Which reminds me to ask you again: if you really believe that Hebrews 13 and John 6 are telling you that "eating the sacrifice" is to be done in the same manner as in the Old Covenant.... then why aren't you holding to the Roman Catholic view?
Neither Orthodoxy nor Catholicism teaches Christ is sacrificed again at each liturgy. Hebrews itself says "once for all" (9:26-28), and Orthodox theology fully affirms that. What's claimed is that the one, finished sacrifice is made truly present and truly participated in at each Eucharist, not repeated, not added to, or improved on. You don't know our theology man. Seriously, this is basic stuff we don't believe…
On "no more altar, temple, priesthood," you're asserting all of that, but Hebrews itself doesn't erase this language, it keeps using it in the present tense about the church. "We have an altar" (13:10) is present tense, not "we used to have." If everything physical/institutional was dissolved into pure inward spirituality, why does the author keep reaching for priest, altar, sacrifice, blood language to describe what Christians presently have, rather than simply saying "you don't need any of that anymore"? You're reading your conclusion into the tense of the verbs.
You haven't shown me where the text itself says "eating" here means something non-physical. You've given me a theological system (finished sacrifice, priesthood of all believers, indwelling Spirit) and then used that system to tell me what "eat" must mean here. You're reading a system into a text.
Rome dogmatizes a specific philosophical mechanism, transubstantiation. They try to explain it scientifically and break it apart (that's nominalism btw). Orthodoxy affirms the reality of the change without dogmatizing the metaphysical mechanism, it's held as a mystery, not explained.
I did answer what's missed, repeatedly, real union with Christ's life, tied to actual resurrection (John 6:54), the actual participation Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 10:16. You calling that answer invisible doesn't make it invisible.
Nowhere did I say that RC/Orthodoxy "sacrifices again" in the Eucharist. What I said about their view, is clearly the official view of those churches: that the Eucharist is an actual, propitiatory sacrifice. Yes, I do know your theology. You should know by know that I'm not gonna claim things that I can't back up.
As I've clearly said, Hebrews isn't "erasing" the language of "altar", "priest", "temple", etc. it's elevating them to a new, superior form that is the ultimate realization of the Old Covenant types. Your problem is that you're still reading them through Old Covenant lenses.
On "eating" being figurative, rather than literal: you're missing the context that the author of Hebrews himself set up in the previous verse, where he says we are to be strengthened by grace, NOT by foods - in other words, by a spiritual, non-physical form of sustenance, i.e. "eating". The author is carrying over this same idea into his very next verse, where he says those Old Covenant Jews who reject Jesus have "no right" to "eat" this way because they rejected him. Even apart from this, the idea of a spiritual form of "eating" goes right along with the entire message of the book, which is that the Old Covenant types of of temples, priests, sacrifice, and "eating" have all now been realized in their new, superior, and spiritual form where their nature and significance have been perfected. It's hardly conceivable that this author of Hebrews would really be saying that physically putting something into our stomachs is this new and superior way we are reconciled with God.
And one only needs to look at Scripture to confirm all of this - the repeated declarations that salvation is by faith, that believing in Jesus from the heart is how one is justified, and in the direct examples where people were saved or told how to be saved, without physically eating a single thing, or told that they had to.
"I did answer what's missed, repeatedly" - and your answer is completely invalidated by Scripture. You can't even hold your answer consistent with your own theology. It falls apart every time the thief, sinful woman of Luke 7, and the house of Cornelius, none of whom ate anything, are brought up. It completely falls apart with Jesus words in John 6:40. Seriously - if you honestly believe that physically eating something is the way we receive the grace of salvation, then you simply do not understand the Gospel. It's a thinking like Nicodemus, when he tried to understand being "born again" in physical terms. It's a worrisome sign that you may have not truly been regenerated by the Spirit.
Faith is the necessary prerequisite to receive grace worthily. Paul explicitly says in 1 Corinthians 11 that eating without faith/discernment brings judgment, not magic salvation. Sacraments do not replace faith: they're the physical conduits through which God imparts grace to the faithful, just as Jesus used physical spit and mud to heal the blind man, or water in baptism (1 Peter 3:21).
How did the house of Cornelius get saved without receiving grace through the "physical conduit" of the Eucharist? Your view necessitates the belief that at the end of their story in the book of Acts, they were still not saved. And if you can't see how truly absurd that is, then your Orthodox tribalism has completely overtaken whatever rationality and logic you had.
Doc? How did the house of Cornelius get saved without receiving grace through the "physical conduit" of the Eucharist?
You really can't avoid this question, if your church's view is to be tenable.
Doc?
Let's get the correct understanding first. The Eucharist is a sacrificial meal. In the ancient biblical world, sacrifices were not about "paying off" God, nor were they legal check boxes, they were communal meals that sealed covenants and allowed human beings to participate in God's life.
Just as circumcision was the mark of covenant inclusion in the Old Testament...not a legal work that earned God's love, the Eucharist is the food of the New Covenant given to sustain those inside the household. FYI, we baptize infants as a new covenant inclusion...just like circumcision was.
.
God is not a lawyer managing transactional requirements (where missing the Eucharist damns you on a technicality). God is a Father restoring His creation through covenant. Cornelius was drawn in by the Spirit, but he was brought to the Table because that is where the Family eats. The Eucharist wasn't meant to be a transactional prerequisite that "allows" God to save someone. It is the food of the New Covenant given to those brought into the family.
Cornelius's initial experience of the Holy Spirit basically proved that God was cleansing the Gentiles. The Spirit falls first as a revelation, but the Spirit's very presence immediately demands that Cornelius be baptized into the physical body (Acts 10:47). That outpouring of grace didn't make the physical sacraments unnecessary, it was the divine directive bringing Cornelius into the sacramental life of the Church.
The way your interpret faith and sola fide requires you to adhere to transactional paradigm. You have no reason to adhere to sacraments because you deny that God can work through physical means.
But there is no answer here to my question. You stated that through the "physical conduit" of the Eucharist we receive grace, and you argued that this grace was "resurrection", i.e. salvation. So how did the house of Cornelius become saved without the Eucharist?
This isn't really about the Eucharist. What did Jesus mean when he said, "If any man has a mind to come my way, let him renounce self, and take up his cross, and follow me?"
What DID Jesus mean in that verse you referenced? Do you think he was talking about salvation? If so, then how did the house of Cornelius get saved without denying themselves and "taking up their cross"? How did the thief on the cross?
That's what I'm asking you. Is following Jesus necessary for salvation?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doc Holliday said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doc Holliday said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doc Holliday said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doc Holliday said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Doc Holliday said:
Do ya'll understand Hebrews 13?
Paul is contrasting what we (Christians) eat at the altar, versus what the Jews eat at the tabernacle.
The Old Covenant priests ate from animal sacrifices at the tabernacle, that's the plain meaning of verses 10-11. Then verse 10 says "we have an altar from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat."
Then verse 15 says to "offer up a sacrifice of praise." The word there is eucharistia. It's not just "say thanks." In this context, surrounded by altar, sacrifice, blood, and priesthood language, it's ritual offering vocabulary. Paul isn't randomly switching from physical categories to a purely mental one mid-paragraph. He's naming the new sacrifice that replaces the old one.
The whole passage only makes sense as priesthood-to-priesthood, altar-to-altar, sacrifice-to-sacrifice, eating-to-eating. If the Christian side of that comparison is just an inward feeling of gratitude, the contrast falls apart and doesn't make sense, because you'd be comparing a real, physical, exclusionary system to something anyone can do regardless of church membership. That's not what the text sets up. It sets up two competing systems, and says ours is better and still ours to eat from.
Apparently, you do not understand Hebrews 13 at all.
NOTHING in Hebrews 13 says that the communion bread and wine are the "Real Presence" of Jesus, or that communion/the Eucharist is the replacement "ceremony" for the church that is the necessary means for us to receive some kind of grace. Where it says "those who serve the tent (Old Covenant Jews who still perform animal sacrifices) have no right to eat", the "eating" there is not literal. He's making the point that the New Covenant involves a higher form of "eating" that the Old Covenant Jews rejected. The "eating" isn't physical. This is made obvious by reading the verse immediately prior:
"... for it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by foods, which have not benefited those devoted to them."
The author clearly is setting up the meaning of "eating" in the following verse in the mind of the reader to convey something higher and more significant than the physical ingestion of food.
Verse 15, which you reference, perfectly illustrates how the author is elevating the concepts of "eating" and "sacrifice" to go BEYOND, not be identical to, their meaning in the Old Covenant way:
"Through him then let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that acknowledge his name. Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God."
It's really odd how you can read a verse thinking it makes your argument, when it completely destroys it. Clearly, this verse is saying that the "Eucharist" is NOT a sacrifice that involves the real, actual re-presentation of Jesus' sacrifice that is performed on an physical altar by human priests - but rather a "sacrifice" that comes from the heart of the believer in the form of thanksgiving, praise, obedience, and love for others. The very verse you offered as support for your view completely destroys it and fully supports the Protestant view instead.
Here is the outline: don't slide back into ceremonial food law (v.9), we have a real altar you don't have access to (v.10), pointing to Christ's sacrifice outside the camp (v.11-13), and because of that we also offer praise and good works (v.15-16). That's addition, not swap. You've got cause and effect flipped, treating our response to the altar as if it erases the altar.
You've got the logic backwards. Verse 9's "foods" isn't saying eating in general is now some metaphor, it's talking about Jewish food laws, same thing Hebrews 9:10 already covers, "foods and drinks and various washings." It's saying don't get sucked back into Mosaic dietary rules, not "eating doesn't mean eating anymore."
Then verse 10 switches to a totally different image: an altar. "We have an altar those who serve the tent have no right to eat from." That keeps going with real priestly language, actual animals, actual blood, an actual high priest, burned outside the camp. The whole passage is set up as a parallel, their altar and eating vs. our altar and eating. If you want "eat" to suddenly mean something non-physical only on our side, you have to show me that in the text. You're just asserting it and it doesn't make any sense.
And verse 15 doesn't redefine verse 10, it adds to it. Nothing says "sacrifice of praise" replaces the altar. It's an extra exhortation, right next to verse 16's " do good and share." Those are the fruits that come from having the altar, not a reinterpretation that cancels it out. You're treating two separate things, the altar-eating in v.10 and the praise sacrifice in v.15, like the second one swallows the first. Hebrews never says that.
You're looking at this passage with confirmation bias through your Orthodox lens, so you're reading it as a prescription for the New Covenant church to have the same system of temples, priests, altars, sacrifices, and the physical eating of the sacrifice that was characteristic of the Old Covenant. But this is completely missing the point the author is making, and is in fact going backwards from what the author intended. That old system is obsolete. There is NO MORE SACRIFICE. Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was the finished, once-for-all-time sacrifice for all sins, past, present and future. It completely eliminates the need for any further sacrifice."It is finished". Similarly, there is no more temple, because God now resides in the hearts of believers. There is no more organizational priesthood, because Jesus is now our one, true Priest who intercedes for us directly with God, and we are the "priesthood of believers". There is no more sacrificial "altar" to atone for our sins, because the final sacrifice has already been made. And there is no more literal, physical eating of the sacrifice - the "eating" is what we do when we, by believing in Jesus, gain spiritual sustenance leading to eternal life, which is superior to physical eating, which only gives us physical sustenance towards physical, temporal life. The point of Hebrews was to show that the New Covenant is made superior to the Old - the Old was only a type, a shadow of what was to come. The "altar" and "eating" language the author uses in this chapter in reference to the New Covenant is describing a new, higher, spiritual reality that is superior to the Old. The author is NOT making a one-to-one comparison with the Old Covenant to where the "eating" in the New is the same physical eating as in the Old, but rather a new, spiritual form of it.
Therefore, there is no need whatsoever for the communion bread and wine to contain the presence of Jesus in some "real" way in order for the communion "sacrifice" to be an actual, efficacious sacrifice. The efficacious sacrifice has already been completed. Jesus does not have to be "present" within the bread and wine of communion - he was present at the cross and that is all that was needed. The "Real Presence" of Jesus" in a repeated ceremonial sacrifice is a pure redundancy. And what's infinitely worse, it's actually a rejection of the finished work of Jesus on the cross. And this is what Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy formalize as dogma, a requirement for salvation. Absolutely incredible, and disgusting.
The fact that the author of Hebrews only tells us that the "eucharist" is a "sacrifice of praise"... never once mentioning anything about the sacrifice involving a kind of "real" presence within the communion bread and wine... is illustrative of all of this, and it completely invalidates your view. You're really reading HEAVILY your Orthodox theology into this passage, and your reasoning above is completely forced.
And it needs to be restated, that nowhere, not in Hebrews or anywhere else in Scripture are we told that if a believer takes communion as a symbol/memorial rather than as a "Real Presence", that there is any kind of loss for that believer, let alone salvation itself. A fact made evident by your complete failure to tell us what it is exactly that the believer misses out on. The Roman Catholics fail to do the same. Which reminds me to ask you again: if you really believe that Hebrews 13 and John 6 are telling you that "eating the sacrifice" is to be done in the same manner as in the Old Covenant.... then why aren't you holding to the Roman Catholic view?
Neither Orthodoxy nor Catholicism teaches Christ is sacrificed again at each liturgy. Hebrews itself says "once for all" (9:26-28), and Orthodox theology fully affirms that. What's claimed is that the one, finished sacrifice is made truly present and truly participated in at each Eucharist, not repeated, not added to, or improved on. You don't know our theology man. Seriously, this is basic stuff we don't believe…
On "no more altar, temple, priesthood," you're asserting all of that, but Hebrews itself doesn't erase this language, it keeps using it in the present tense about the church. "We have an altar" (13:10) is present tense, not "we used to have." If everything physical/institutional was dissolved into pure inward spirituality, why does the author keep reaching for priest, altar, sacrifice, blood language to describe what Christians presently have, rather than simply saying "you don't need any of that anymore"? You're reading your conclusion into the tense of the verbs.
You haven't shown me where the text itself says "eating" here means something non-physical. You've given me a theological system (finished sacrifice, priesthood of all believers, indwelling Spirit) and then used that system to tell me what "eat" must mean here. You're reading a system into a text.
Rome dogmatizes a specific philosophical mechanism, transubstantiation. They try to explain it scientifically and break it apart (that's nominalism btw). Orthodoxy affirms the reality of the change without dogmatizing the metaphysical mechanism, it's held as a mystery, not explained.
I did answer what's missed, repeatedly, real union with Christ's life, tied to actual resurrection (John 6:54), the actual participation Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 10:16. You calling that answer invisible doesn't make it invisible.
Nowhere did I say that RC/Orthodoxy "sacrifices again" in the Eucharist. What I said about their view, is clearly the official view of those churches: that the Eucharist is an actual, propitiatory sacrifice. Yes, I do know your theology. You should know by know that I'm not gonna claim things that I can't back up.
As I've clearly said, Hebrews isn't "erasing" the language of "altar", "priest", "temple", etc. it's elevating them to a new, superior form that is the ultimate realization of the Old Covenant types. Your problem is that you're still reading them through Old Covenant lenses.
On "eating" being figurative, rather than literal: you're missing the context that the author of Hebrews himself set up in the previous verse, where he says we are to be strengthened by grace, NOT by foods - in other words, by a spiritual, non-physical form of sustenance, i.e. "eating". The author is carrying over this same idea into his very next verse, where he says those Old Covenant Jews who reject Jesus have "no right" to "eat" this way because they rejected him. Even apart from this, the idea of a spiritual form of "eating" goes right along with the entire message of the book, which is that the Old Covenant types of of temples, priests, sacrifice, and "eating" have all now been realized in their new, superior, and spiritual form where their nature and significance have been perfected. It's hardly conceivable that this author of Hebrews would really be saying that physically putting something into our stomachs is this new and superior way we are reconciled with God.
And one only needs to look at Scripture to confirm all of this - the repeated declarations that salvation is by faith, that believing in Jesus from the heart is how one is justified, and in the direct examples where people were saved or told how to be saved, without physically eating a single thing, or told that they had to.
"I did answer what's missed, repeatedly" - and your answer is completely invalidated by Scripture. You can't even hold your answer consistent with your own theology. It falls apart every time the thief, sinful woman of Luke 7, and the house of Cornelius, none of whom ate anything, are brought up. It completely falls apart with Jesus words in John 6:40. Seriously - if you honestly believe that physically eating something is the way we receive the grace of salvation, then you simply do not understand the Gospel. It's a thinking like Nicodemus, when he tried to understand being "born again" in physical terms. It's a worrisome sign that you may have not truly been regenerated by the Spirit.
Faith is the necessary prerequisite to receive grace worthily. Paul explicitly says in 1 Corinthians 11 that eating without faith/discernment brings judgment, not magic salvation. Sacraments do not replace faith: they're the physical conduits through which God imparts grace to the faithful, just as Jesus used physical spit and mud to heal the blind man, or water in baptism (1 Peter 3:21).
How did the house of Cornelius get saved without receiving grace through the "physical conduit" of the Eucharist? Your view necessitates the belief that at the end of their story in the book of Acts, they were still not saved. And if you can't see how truly absurd that is, then your Orthodox tribalism has completely overtaken whatever rationality and logic you had.
Doc? How did the house of Cornelius get saved without receiving grace through the "physical conduit" of the Eucharist?
You really can't avoid this question, if your church's view is to be tenable.
Doc?
Let's get the correct understanding first. The Eucharist is a sacrificial meal. In the ancient biblical world, sacrifices were not about "paying off" God, nor were they legal check boxes, they were communal meals that sealed covenants and allowed human beings to participate in God's life.
Just as circumcision was the mark of covenant inclusion in the Old Testament...not a legal work that earned God's love, the Eucharist is the food of the New Covenant given to sustain those inside the household. FYI, we baptize infants as a new covenant inclusion...just like circumcision was.
.
God is not a lawyer managing transactional requirements (where missing the Eucharist damns you on a technicality). God is a Father restoring His creation through covenant. Cornelius was drawn in by the Spirit, but he was brought to the Table because that is where the Family eats. The Eucharist wasn't meant to be a transactional prerequisite that "allows" God to save someone. It is the food of the New Covenant given to those brought into the family.
Cornelius's initial experience of the Holy Spirit basically proved that God was cleansing the Gentiles. The Spirit falls first as a revelation, but the Spirit's very presence immediately demands that Cornelius be baptized into the physical body (Acts 10:47). That outpouring of grace didn't make the physical sacraments unnecessary, it was the divine directive bringing Cornelius into the sacramental life of the Church.
The way your interpret faith and sola fide requires you to adhere to transactional paradigm. You have no reason to adhere to sacraments because you deny that God can work through physical means.
But there is no answer here to my question. You stated that through the "physical conduit" of the Eucharist we receive grace, and you argued that this grace was "resurrection", i.e. salvation. So how did the house of Cornelius become saved without the Eucharist?
This isn't really about the Eucharist. What did Jesus mean when he said, "If any man has a mind to come my way, let him renounce self, and take up his cross, and follow me?"
What DID Jesus mean in that verse you referenced? Do you think he was talking about salvation? If so, then how did the house of Cornelius get saved without denying themselves and "taking up their cross"? How did the thief on the cross?
That's what I'm asking you. Is following Jesus necessary for salvation?
Define "follow".
Sam LowryThis isn't really about the Eucharist. What did Jesus mean when he said, "If any man has a mind to come my way, let him renounce self, and take up his cross, and follow me?" said:Quote:Quote:Quote:
What DID Jesus mean in that verse you referenced? Do you think he was talking about salvation? If so, then how did the house of Cornelius get saved without denying themselves and "taking up their cross"? How did the thief on the cross?
That's what I'm asking you. Is following Jesus necessary for salvation?
Define "follow".
I don't care. Define it however you want.
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam LowryThis isn't really about the Eucharist. What did Jesus mean when he said, "If any man has a mind to come my way, let him renounce self, and take up his cross, and follow me?" said:Quote:Quote:Quote:
What DID Jesus mean in that verse you referenced? Do you think he was talking about salvation? If so, then how did the house of Cornelius get saved without denying themselves and "taking up their cross"? How did the thief on the cross?
That's what I'm asking you. Is following Jesus necessary for salvation?
Define "follow".
I don't care. Define it however you want.
If I define it "however I want", then what's the point of your question?
Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam LowryThis isn't really about the Eucharist. What did Jesus mean when he said, "If any man has a mind to come my way, let him renounce self, and take up his cross, and follow me?" said:Quote:Quote:Quote:
What DID Jesus mean in that verse you referenced? Do you think he was talking about salvation? If so, then how did the house of Cornelius get saved without denying themselves and "taking up their cross"? How did the thief on the cross?
That's what I'm asking you. Is following Jesus necessary for salvation?
Define "follow".
I don't care. Define it however you want.
If I define it "however I want", then what's the point of your question?
You'll see.
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam LowryThis isn't really about the Eucharist. What did Jesus mean when he said, "If any man has a mind to come my way, let him renounce self, and take up his cross, and follow me?" said:Quote:Quote:Quote:
What DID Jesus mean in that verse you referenced? Do you think he was talking about salvation? If so, then how did the house of Cornelius get saved without denying themselves and "taking up their cross"? How did the thief on the cross?
That's what I'm asking you. Is following Jesus necessary for salvation?
Define "follow".
I don't care. Define it however you want.
If I define it "however I want", then what's the point of your question?
You'll see.
Did the thief on the cross and the house of Cornelius "follow" Jesus to be saved? There's your answer.
Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam LowryThis isn't really about the Eucharist. What did Jesus mean when he said, "If any man has a mind to come my way, let him renounce self, and take up his cross, and follow me?" said:Quote:Quote:Quote:
What DID Jesus mean in that verse you referenced? Do you think he was talking about salvation? If so, then how did the house of Cornelius get saved without denying themselves and "taking up their cross"? How did the thief on the cross?
That's what I'm asking you. Is following Jesus necessary for salvation?
Define "follow".
I don't care. Define it however you want.
If I define it "however I want", then what's the point of your question?
You'll see.
Did the thief on the cross and the house of Cornelius "follow" Jesus to be saved? There's your answer.
Good. And I assume you believe their salvation was a done deal at that point. No further action was required.
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam LowryThis isn't really about the Eucharist. What did Jesus mean when he said, "If any man has a mind to come my way, let him renounce self, and take up his cross, and follow me?" said:Quote:Quote:Quote:
What DID Jesus mean in that verse you referenced? Do you think he was talking about salvation? If so, then how did the house of Cornelius get saved without denying themselves and "taking up their cross"? How did the thief on the cross?
That's what I'm asking you. Is following Jesus necessary for salvation?
Define "follow".
I don't care. Define it however you want.
If I define it "however I want", then what's the point of your question?
You'll see.
Did the thief on the cross and the house of Cornelius "follow" Jesus to be saved? There's your answer.
Good. And I assume you believe their salvation was a done deal at that point. No further action was required.
You don't believe what Jesus said to the thief?
Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam LowryThis isn't really about the Eucharist. What did Jesus mean when he said, "If any man has a mind to come my way, let him renounce self, and take up his cross, and follow me?" said:Quote:Quote:Quote:
What DID Jesus mean in that verse you referenced? Do you think he was talking about salvation? If so, then how did the house of Cornelius get saved without denying themselves and "taking up their cross"? How did the thief on the cross?
That's what I'm asking you. Is following Jesus necessary for salvation?
Define "follow".
I don't care. Define it however you want.
If I define it "however I want", then what's the point of your question?
You'll see.
Did the thief on the cross and the house of Cornelius "follow" Jesus to be saved? There's your answer.
Good. And I assume you believe their salvation was a done deal at that point. No further action was required.
You don't believe what Jesus said to the thief?
I'll take that to mean no further action was required. This is why I say the real issue isn't the Eucharist. The real issue is whether anything beyond that initial profession of faith is necessary. I'm understanding you to say the answer is no.
Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam LowryThis isn't really about the Eucharist. What did Jesus mean when he said, "If any man has a mind to come my way, let him renounce self, and take up his cross, and follow me?" said:Quote:Quote:Quote:
What DID Jesus mean in that verse you referenced? Do you think he was talking about salvation? If so, then how did the house of Cornelius get saved without denying themselves and "taking up their cross"? How did the thief on the cross?
That's what I'm asking you. Is following Jesus necessary for salvation?
Define "follow".
I don't care. Define it however you want.
If I define it "however I want", then what's the point of your question?
You'll see.
Did the thief on the cross and the house of Cornelius "follow" Jesus to be saved? There's your answer.
Good. And I assume you believe their salvation was a done deal at that point. No further action was required.
You don't believe what Jesus said to the thief?
I'll take that to mean no further action was required. This is why I say the real issue isn't the Eucharist. The real issue is whether anything beyond that initial profession of faith is necessary. I'm understanding you to say the answer is no.
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam LowryThis isn't really about the Eucharist. What did Jesus mean when he said, "If any man has a mind to come my way, let him renounce self, and take up his cross, and follow me?" said:Quote:Quote:Quote:
What DID Jesus mean in that verse you referenced? Do you think he was talking about salvation? If so, then how did the house of Cornelius get saved without denying themselves and "taking up their cross"? How did the thief on the cross?
That's what I'm asking you. Is following Jesus necessary for salvation?
Define "follow".
I don't care. Define it however you want.
If I define it "however I want", then what's the point of your question?
You'll see.
Did the thief on the cross and the house of Cornelius "follow" Jesus to be saved? There's your answer.
Good. And I assume you believe their salvation was a done deal at that point. No further action was required.
You don't believe what Jesus said to the thief?
I'll take that to mean no further action was required. This is why I say the real issue isn't the Eucharist. The real issue is whether anything beyond that initial profession of faith is necessary. I'm understanding you to say the answer is no.
Why insert "the profession" of faith? A profession of faith isn't faith. Faith is faith. Faith is all that is necessary. That's evident from Scripture.
And the Eucharist IS the issue, because you RC's and the Orthodox say it IS necessary. Which isn't compatible with what the rest of Scripture tells us. So that makes it a pretty important issue.
But we knew each other's stance already. So what was your point?
Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam LowryThis isn't really about the Eucharist. What did Jesus mean when he said, "If any man has a mind to come my way, let him renounce self, and take up his cross, and follow me?" said:Quote:Quote:Quote:
What DID Jesus mean in that verse you referenced? Do you think he was talking about salvation? If so, then how did the house of Cornelius get saved without denying themselves and "taking up their cross"? How did the thief on the cross?
That's what I'm asking you. Is following Jesus necessary for salvation?
Define "follow".
I don't care. Define it however you want.
If I define it "however I want", then what's the point of your question?
You'll see.
Did the thief on the cross and the house of Cornelius "follow" Jesus to be saved? There's your answer.
Good. And I assume you believe their salvation was a done deal at that point. No further action was required.
You don't believe what Jesus said to the thief?
I'll take that to mean no further action was required. This is why I say the real issue isn't the Eucharist. The real issue is whether anything beyond that initial profession of faith is necessary. I'm understanding you to say the answer is no.
Why insert "the profession" of faith? A profession of faith isn't faith. Faith is faith. Faith is all that is necessary. That's evident from Scripture.
And the Eucharist IS the issue, because you RC's and the Orthodox say it IS necessary. Which isn't compatible with what the rest of Scripture tells us. So that makes it a pretty important issue.
But we knew each other's stance already. So what was your point?
So if not the Eucharist, what else is necessary?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam LowryThis isn't really about the Eucharist. What did Jesus mean when he said, "If any man has a mind to come my way, let him renounce self, and take up his cross, and follow me?" said:Quote:Quote:Quote:
What DID Jesus mean in that verse you referenced? Do you think he was talking about salvation? If so, then how did the house of Cornelius get saved without denying themselves and "taking up their cross"? How did the thief on the cross?
That's what I'm asking you. Is following Jesus necessary for salvation?
Define "follow".
I don't care. Define it however you want.
If I define it "however I want", then what's the point of your question?
You'll see.
Did the thief on the cross and the house of Cornelius "follow" Jesus to be saved? There's your answer.
Good. And I assume you believe their salvation was a done deal at that point. No further action was required.
You don't believe what Jesus said to the thief?
I'll take that to mean no further action was required. This is why I say the real issue isn't the Eucharist. The real issue is whether anything beyond that initial profession of faith is necessary. I'm understanding you to say the answer is no.
Why insert "the profession" of faith? A profession of faith isn't faith. Faith is faith. Faith is all that is necessary. That's evident from Scripture.
And the Eucharist IS the issue, because you RC's and the Orthodox say it IS necessary. Which isn't compatible with what the rest of Scripture tells us. So that makes it a pretty important issue.
But we knew each other's stance already. So what was your point?
So if not the Eucharist, what else is necessary?
I'll take this as your concession that whatever point you were trying to make, fell through.
Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam LowryThis isn't really about the Eucharist. What did Jesus mean when he said, "If any man has a mind to come my way, let him renounce self, and take up his cross, and follow me?" said:Quote:Quote:Quote:
What DID Jesus mean in that verse you referenced? Do you think he was talking about salvation? If so, then how did the house of Cornelius get saved without denying themselves and "taking up their cross"? How did the thief on the cross?
That's what I'm asking you. Is following Jesus necessary for salvation?
Define "follow".
I don't care. Define it however you want.
If I define it "however I want", then what's the point of your question?
You'll see.
Did the thief on the cross and the house of Cornelius "follow" Jesus to be saved? There's your answer.
Good. And I assume you believe their salvation was a done deal at that point. No further action was required.
You don't believe what Jesus said to the thief?
I'll take that to mean no further action was required. This is why I say the real issue isn't the Eucharist. The real issue is whether anything beyond that initial profession of faith is necessary. I'm understanding you to say the answer is no.
Why insert "the profession" of faith? A profession of faith isn't faith. Faith is faith. Faith is all that is necessary. That's evident from Scripture.
And the Eucharist IS the issue, because you RC's and the Orthodox say it IS necessary. Which isn't compatible with what the rest of Scripture tells us. So that makes it a pretty important issue.
But we knew each other's stance already. So what was your point?
So if not the Eucharist, what else is necessary?
I'll take this as your concession that whatever point you were trying to make, fell through.
Don't be an Oldbear. You can do better.
Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam LowryThis isn't really about the Eucharist. What did Jesus mean when he said, "If any man has a mind to come my way, let him renounce self, and take up his cross, and follow me?" said:Quote:Quote:Quote:
What DID Jesus mean in that verse you referenced? Do you think he was talking about salvation? If so, then how did the house of Cornelius get saved without denying themselves and "taking up their cross"? How did the thief on the cross?
That's what I'm asking you. Is following Jesus necessary for salvation?
Define "follow".
I don't care. Define it however you want.
If I define it "however I want", then what's the point of your question?
You'll see.
Did the thief on the cross and the house of Cornelius "follow" Jesus to be saved? There's your answer.
Good. And I assume you believe their salvation was a done deal at that point. No further action was required.
You don't believe what Jesus said to the thief?
I'll take that to mean no further action was required. This is why I say the real issue isn't the Eucharist. The real issue is whether anything beyond that initial profession of faith is necessary. I'm understanding you to say the answer is no.
Why insert "the profession" of faith? A profession of faith isn't faith. Faith is faith. Faith is all that is necessary. That's evident from Scripture.
And the Eucharist IS the issue, because you RC's and the Orthodox say it IS necessary. Which isn't compatible with what the rest of Scripture tells us. So that makes it a pretty important issue.
But we knew each other's stance already. So what was your point?
So if not the Eucharist, what else is necessary?
I'll take this as your concession that whatever point you were trying to make, fell through.
Don't be an Oldbear. You can do better.
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam LowryThis isn't really about the Eucharist. What did Jesus mean when he said, "If any man has a mind to come my way, let him renounce self, and take up his cross, and follow me?" said:Quote:Quote:Quote:
What DID Jesus mean in that verse you referenced? Do you think he was talking about salvation? If so, then how did the house of Cornelius get saved without denying themselves and "taking up their cross"? How did the thief on the cross?
That's what I'm asking you. Is following Jesus necessary for salvation?
Define "follow".
I don't care. Define it however you want.
If I define it "however I want", then what's the point of your question?
You'll see.
Did the thief on the cross and the house of Cornelius "follow" Jesus to be saved? There's your answer.
Good. And I assume you believe their salvation was a done deal at that point. No further action was required.
You don't believe what Jesus said to the thief?
I'll take that to mean no further action was required. This is why I say the real issue isn't the Eucharist. The real issue is whether anything beyond that initial profession of faith is necessary. I'm understanding you to say the answer is no.
Why insert "the profession" of faith? A profession of faith isn't faith. Faith is faith. Faith is all that is necessary. That's evident from Scripture.
And the Eucharist IS the issue, because you RC's and the Orthodox say it IS necessary. Which isn't compatible with what the rest of Scripture tells us. So that makes it a pretty important issue.
But we knew each other's stance already. So what was your point?
So if not the Eucharist, what else is necessary?
I'll take this as your concession that whatever point you were trying to make, fell through.
Don't be an Oldbear. You can do better.
Clearly, you realized you went nowhere. If anything, you strengthened my point and significantly weakened yours. I'm sure this wasn't what you intended.
Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam LowryThis isn't really about the Eucharist. What did Jesus mean when he said, "If any man has a mind to come my way, let him renounce self, and take up his cross, and follow me?" said:Quote:Quote:Quote:
What DID Jesus mean in that verse you referenced? Do you think he was talking about salvation? If so, then how did the house of Cornelius get saved without denying themselves and "taking up their cross"? How did the thief on the cross?
That's what I'm asking you. Is following Jesus necessary for salvation?
Define "follow".
I don't care. Define it however you want.
If I define it "however I want", then what's the point of your question?
You'll see.
Did the thief on the cross and the house of Cornelius "follow" Jesus to be saved? There's your answer.
Good. And I assume you believe their salvation was a done deal at that point. No further action was required.
You don't believe what Jesus said to the thief?
I'll take that to mean no further action was required. This is why I say the real issue isn't the Eucharist. The real issue is whether anything beyond that initial profession of faith is necessary. I'm understanding you to say the answer is no.
Why insert "the profession" of faith? A profession of faith isn't faith. Faith is faith. Faith is all that is necessary. That's evident from Scripture.
And the Eucharist IS the issue, because you RC's and the Orthodox say it IS necessary. Which isn't compatible with what the rest of Scripture tells us. So that makes it a pretty important issue.
But we knew each other's stance already. So what was your point?
So if not the Eucharist, what else is necessary?
I'll take this as your concession that whatever point you were trying to make, fell through.
Don't be an Oldbear. You can do better.
Clearly, you realized you went nowhere. If anything, you strengthened my point and significantly weakened yours. I'm sure this wasn't what you intended.
Disappointing. I guess my respect for you was misplaced.
Oldbear83 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam LowryThis isn't really about the Eucharist. What did Jesus mean when he said, "If any man has a mind to come my way, let him renounce self, and take up his cross, and follow me?" said:Quote:Quote:Quote:
What DID Jesus mean in that verse you referenced? Do you think he was talking about salvation? If so, then how did the house of Cornelius get saved without denying themselves and "taking up their cross"? How did the thief on the cross?
That's what I'm asking you. Is following Jesus necessary for salvation?
Define "follow".
I don't care. Define it however you want.
If I define it "however I want", then what's the point of your question?
You'll see.
Did the thief on the cross and the house of Cornelius "follow" Jesus to be saved? There's your answer.
Good. And I assume you believe their salvation was a done deal at that point. No further action was required.
You don't believe what Jesus said to the thief?
I'll take that to mean no further action was required. This is why I say the real issue isn't the Eucharist. The real issue is whether anything beyond that initial profession of faith is necessary. I'm understanding you to say the answer is no.
Why insert "the profession" of faith? A profession of faith isn't faith. Faith is faith. Faith is all that is necessary. That's evident from Scripture.
And the Eucharist IS the issue, because you RC's and the Orthodox say it IS necessary. Which isn't compatible with what the rest of Scripture tells us. So that makes it a pretty important issue.
But we knew each other's stance already. So what was your point?
So if not the Eucharist, what else is necessary?
I'll take this as your concession that whatever point you were trying to make, fell through.
Don't be an Oldbear. You can do better.
What does it profit a man, if he feels like he wins every internet argument, yet acts nothing like a follower of Christ?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam LowryThis isn't really about the Eucharist. What did Jesus mean when he said, "If any man has a mind to come my way, let him renounce self, and take up his cross, and follow me?" said:Quote:Quote:Quote:
What DID Jesus mean in that verse you referenced? Do you think he was talking about salvation? If so, then how did the house of Cornelius get saved without denying themselves and "taking up their cross"? How did the thief on the cross?
That's what I'm asking you. Is following Jesus necessary for salvation?
Define "follow".
I don't care. Define it however you want.
If I define it "however I want", then what's the point of your question?
You'll see.
Did the thief on the cross and the house of Cornelius "follow" Jesus to be saved? There's your answer.
Good. And I assume you believe their salvation was a done deal at that point. No further action was required.
You don't believe what Jesus said to the thief?
I'll take that to mean no further action was required. This is why I say the real issue isn't the Eucharist. The real issue is whether anything beyond that initial profession of faith is necessary. I'm understanding you to say the answer is no.
Why insert "the profession" of faith? A profession of faith isn't faith. Faith is faith. Faith is all that is necessary. That's evident from Scripture.
And the Eucharist IS the issue, because you RC's and the Orthodox say it IS necessary. Which isn't compatible with what the rest of Scripture tells us. So that makes it a pretty important issue.
But we knew each other's stance already. So what was your point?
So if not the Eucharist, what else is necessary?
I'll take this as your concession that whatever point you were trying to make, fell through.
Don't be an Oldbear. You can do better.
Clearly, you realized you went nowhere. If anything, you strengthened my point and significantly weakened yours. I'm sure this wasn't what you intended.
Disappointing. I guess my respect for you was misplaced.
You know you went to playing your usual games because your point fell through. I know that you know. That's all that matters.
I don't want or need your respect. I'd much rather you stop your defense mechanism of playing games and open your eyes, be honest, have clarity, and see that what I'm saying is right.
Sam Lowry said:
So if not the Eucharist, what else is necessary?
Exactly. This is why Orthodoxy retains sacramental confession, fasting before communion, and the priest's prayer before the chalice ("approach with fear of God"), not because grace is earned or something along those lines. It's because right disposition is what allows the gift to be received as healing rather than as judgment.Realitybites said:Sam Lowry said:
So if not the Eucharist, what else is necessary?
Repentance and faith. Received without those, the Eucharist can be toxic. It is good that God is exceedingly patient with us.
aknowledgement He is the Christ, agreement He is the son of God who died for our sins, and trust in Jesus as the truth, the way, and the life where there is only Him as a way to the Father.Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam LowryThis isn't really about the Eucharist. What did Jesus mean when he said, "If any man has a mind to come my way, let him renounce self, and take up his cross, and follow me?" said:Quote:Quote:Quote:
What DID Jesus mean in that verse you referenced? Do you think he was talking about salvation? If so, then how did the house of Cornelius get saved without denying themselves and "taking up their cross"? How did the thief on the cross?
That's what I'm asking you. Is following Jesus necessary for salvation?
Define "follow".
I don't care. Define it however you want.
If I define it "however I want", then what's the point of your question?
You'll see.
Did the thief on the cross and the house of Cornelius "follow" Jesus to be saved? There's your answer.
Good. And I assume you believe their salvation was a done deal at that point. No further action was required.
You don't believe what Jesus said to the thief?
I'll take that to mean no further action was required. This is why I say the real issue isn't the Eucharist. The real issue is whether anything beyond that initial profession of faith is necessary. I'm understanding you to say the answer is no.
Why insert "the profession" of faith? A profession of faith isn't faith. Faith is faith. Faith is all that is necessary. That's evident from Scripture.
And the Eucharist IS the issue, because you RC's and the Orthodox say it IS necessary. Which isn't compatible with what the rest of Scripture tells us. So that makes it a pretty important issue.
But we knew each other's stance already. So what was your point?
So if not the Eucharist, what else is necessary?
