Baptists are an atheist psyop meant to make Christians look bad.
christians look bad enough without baptists though
>>18116484Baptists are Satanic. Ever notice how they talk about being a secret "true" hidden form of Christianity since the start? Baptists are a continuation of the Moloch worship in the OT and are demonic. That is why they rebaptize people, because they are Baptizing you into something other than the Body of Christ.
>For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” (First Apology, 65-66)There, Baptism refuted. This is like 60 years after the Gospel of John.
It’s the Costco of Christianity.
>>18116517>Baptists are Satanic. Ever notice how they talk about being a secret "true" hidden form of Christianity since the start? Baptists are a continuation of the Moloch worship in the OT and are demonic. That is why they rebaptize people, because they are Baptizing you into something other than the Body of Christ."okay now back to my underground skull lair"
>>18116484And in a similar way after supper was done, Jesus took his K-Cup of grape juice.
>>18116851>>18116484>"Take and eat; these little wafers are my bod-">"HEY, HEY, ONE WAFER PER DISCIPLE, JUDAS, YA FAT FUCK"
>>18116811You would hate the bones of the saints wouldn't you, demon.
>>18116866This is actually addressed in 1 Cor 11:20-21. So apparently fat fucks did hog all the bread and wine.
>>18116886I don't get it, how could anyone complain about being hungry if the food part of the eucharist is just supposed to be a little wafer?
>>18116484Where is the "enjoy hell" anon? Isn't he a Baptist?
>>18116894Because some people seem to have tried to use the Eucharist as their actual food. Look at verse 22. Food was very expensive in the 1st century and people were unironically trying to fill up on free communion bread and get drunk on the free wine. It's a hilarious image.
>>18116894>the food part of the eucharist is just supposed to be a little wafer?It doesn't have to be, it's just more convenient when there are a hundred or more people.The priest can break and consecrate a loaf of regular bread too. It's just that there's better quality control involved in the production of hosts as wafers.The point of the Eucharist is not to satiate a physical hunger, but to fill a spiritual need. Some fleshly minded people were treating it as just another meal.
>>18117008I am just amused by the imagine from 1 Cor of people hogging it to get full and so that being an issue presumably leading to the eventual practice of using wafers, for practical reasons.
>>18116484>>18116517Like most protestant sects in was probably ruined by esoteric masonry
>>18117008>it's just more convenientIf bread can be reduced to wafers for convenience I really don't see why wine being reduced to grape juice is some unfathomable sacrilege.
>>18117032Credobaptism is a demonic practice as it is withholding a sacrament given by God from humanity. If you don't believe in infant baptism you are a servant of satan.
>>18116484>I love alcohol more than God.Noted.>>18116517Those flames just got hotter. You're screwed.>>18116543>>18116513>>18116851>>18116880>>18117083Enjoy Hell.
>>18117617Fuck Molek.
>>18116793Lmao
>>18116793I don't get it. Is this supposed to be an insult?
>>18117650It makes no sense as Koreans are always all over my costco and they are always Presbyterian.
>>18117065>reduceNothing has been reduced. If reduction were the point, why not just use water with red food dye instead, or purple drink from the corner store? Why even bother having any sacramental elements at all, just the idea is okay I guess. In fact, forget even the idea. Who needs it? Maybe the church does't need sacraments at all. Who needs Jesus anyways, just reduce him too.In fact while we're at it, using water for baptism is so passe. Instead, let's just write the word water on a piece of paper and place it on your head. Good enough.FFSwafers are still breadfermentation is important because of maturation and generationthis excludes pasteurized beverages, which destroys enzymes and halts the natural progression of its development; thus excluding supermarket grape juiceFact is that Jesus chose to use bread and wine. There is no reason to use anything else.
>>18118463The bread at the last supper would have been unleavened like a wafer.
>>18118469Probably.I don't think the specific amount of yeast exposure or the time that goes into letting your dough rise actually matters that much. This is part of the reason mustin is acceptable in extremis.But certainly I believe that the bread they used that first night was unleavened.Do you think the bread they had at the last supper was pure wheat, or maybe it had some barley corn or something else that could qualify it as multi grain?Not to be snide or anything, I'm just curious.After all, Jesus' disciples are said to have picked wild grains to make bread with IIRC. And the loaves he multiplied were barley.
>>18118527No yeast as it was a Passover Seder. So bread has to be unleavened.
>>18118527Probably very coarse multigrain. As Jesus's crew was poor.
>>18118587Quite.As regards the whole multigrain question I'm inclined to remember the parable of the tares.And how when the wheat germ falls, it produces fruit enough to feed many.I think the identification of Jesus himself here with the wheat is sufficient grounds to establish the practice.>>18118607Certainly they were no strangers to barley, a mainstay of poor folk.But this was a special occasion, they sprang for wheat flour.Kind of like the time someone bought expensive spikenard to pour over Christ, and Judas protested.
>>18118652Judas would have been in charge of procuring the bread. He was the general purse keeper.
Baptists saved Christianity.
>>18118659Judas was too busy selling out to the Pharisees.Jesus sent Peter and John to prepare the passover meal and lodging. If Judas was involved here, it was in dispensing to this pair enough money for the provisions.
>>18118463Yes, Jesus chose to use bread, not wafers. It seems quite hypocritical to chimp out over muh grape juice but TECHNICALLY the wafers are still a form of unleavened grain product so it's basically bread.
>>18118928Because Jesus specifically said to use wine and Christians who refuse to consume wine to the point of refusing to use it in communion are performatively pious to the point of being blasphemous. They create new man made purity laws to the point that they have removed the spirit itself. In short: they are future enjoyers of hell.
>>18116484Cuppa’ ChristJC ShotsGod Glug
>>18119595I don't think there's enough in the text to say alcohol is essential to the rite, it essentially belongs to the mode of the sacrament
>>18117617Reminder that wishing people to be in hell is in itself a very serious sin.
>>18119912Why are Baptists suddenly indifferent to the bible when it involves wine? They are free to convert to Islam.
>>18119912If it says to use wine use wine, why do you think you can disobey Christ?
>>18119595Anon the official position of the catholic church is that the laity has no right to partake in the communion wine anyway (being a decision up to the local bishop), so I don't really get why you're chimping out about another denomination "getting it wrong"
>>18119962>>18119965I'm not a Baptist and I think using non-alcoholic grape juice is embarrassing. But show me in the text where specifically using alcohol is a divine precept>it says wineDefine wine. Jesus calls it the fruit of the vine (Matthew 26:29). Why is it good enough for it to be bread with or without yeast, but not good enough for it to be grape juice with or without alcohol?
>>18119977If it doesn't have alcohol in it, it's not wine.
>>18119970Ok. But in the English speaking word most Christians are not RCC. >>18119977Should be wine. Should be wafers (or other unleavened bread). Last supper used wine and unleavened bread. Orthodox and Baptists are being equally retarded here.
>>18119977If it was grape juice by accident or because it was vastly more convenient I could understand, but they do grape juice because they are morally opposed to wine. This is an absurd extra man made purity law, and shows a fundamental contempt for the teachings of Christ.
>>18119991>Should be wafersJesus broke the bread which He could not have done if it was wafers.The fact the Last Supper used alcohol and yeast does not in and of itself imply we are required to do so any more than we are required to do it at the same time of day. It must be mandated by specific divine precept.>>18119989But is that true of the original languages and at the time, or is it an anachronism?
>>18120005I basically agree but there the objection is to the man-made law, not to the particular absence of alcohol in the sacrament.
>>18119989>>18120013I'm afraid I must correct myself, I made a mistake. It appears that the cup is never called wine in the text of scripture, in all four accounts of the Last Supper it is simply called the cup and its contents are described as "fruit of the vine" so it seems there is absolutely no basis to make alcohol an essential feature of the sacrament because it's not even called wine.
>>18120053Fruit of the vine is wine. There is no way of keeping grape juice from turning to wine until the 19th century. All else is a cope.
>>18120090>Fruit of the vine is wineGrape juice isn't the fruit of the vine?>There is no way of keeping grape juice from turning to wine until the 19th century.What if you drink it before it ferments?
>>18120090And what was the 2st century baking process used by Jesus to make communion wafers for his apostles
>>18120013>Jesus broke the bread which He could not have done if it was wafersYeah because it was a large matzo type sheet. Why do you think so many liturgies break a huge 6" or so diameter wafer? We also know it's wine because it's a Seder and that required wine. You have to read the entire book for it to make sense.
>>18120157>Why do you think so many liturgies break a huge 6" or so diameter wafer?SURE, that's what Jesus did.>We also know it's wine because it's a Seder and that required wineAgain, I agree that they used wine, what I'm questioning is not that Jesus used wine but that He commanded us to.
>>18120118I post this >>18120005 and would probably agree that it is fine to do it before it ferments, but going to the extra steps to avoid drinking wine that had fermented would be sinful. Like if it happens to not have alcohol in it, it would be fine, the issue lies in the perception that alcohol itself is somehow unclean. Note 1 Timothy 5:23.
>>18120118You can't drink it before it ferments. Back when grapes were crushed under foot, people would pass out from the carbon dioxide being released as fermentation took place even before they'd had chance to strain or decant the liquid. Fruit of the vine is wine. Cope.
>>18120162He commanded to Luke 22:19 to do it in his remembrance. So it should roughly copy the structure. Materials to be used are unleavened bread of some kind, physically broken, and wine made from grapes. It becomes literally or spiritually him in the text so I supposed if someone was opposed to alcohol they could at least know it wasn't alcohol when they consumed it.
>>18120191>He commanded to Luke 22:19 to do it in his remembrance. So it should roughly copy the structureThe command "do this" does not mean every last thing that happened that night belongs to the sacrament, it does not mean we are required to celebrate it at the same time of day or that the minister must recline on a couch, it means only that the sacrament consisting of the elements of bread and wine with the words of institution is to be observed. I do not see in the text that alcohol is an element of the sacrament without which there is no sacrament.>Materials to be used are unleavened bread of some kind, physically brokenBreaking is not an attribute of the bread to be eaten but an act which the minister is to perform. You cannot prove that the bread was unleavened let alone that it must be, and there is good reason to think it wasn't because it had to be broken. The habit of the early Church was typically to use leavened bread in any case. Can we really say the presence of leaven in the bread makes it no sacrament?>It becomes literally or spiritually him in the text so I supposed if someone was opposed to alcohol they could at least know it wasn't alcohol when they consumed it.Transubstantiation is a lie from the pit of hell nowhere found in scripture.
>>18120214Look at the scripture. Jesus says very literally that it is his body, that means there is, at a minimum, some kind of at a minimum actual spiritual presence of Christ in the bread and wine.
>>18120214It should ideally be unleavened, so if you are going the Orthodox way and actively using unleavened bread you are actively being wrong on purpose. It's one thing to accidentally or out of happenstance have leavened bread, but another to actively seek it out and then claim it's the right move. Particularly as wafers are cheaper, and in a traditional premodern setting unleavened bread would be faster and cheaper to produce.
>>18116484I have a coworker who keeps inviting me to her Baptist church to 'receive the Holy Spirit'I told her I'm Catholic but she still politely brings it up once in a whileNot sure what her game is
>>18120234No, Jesus does not say it is literally His body anymore than when He took the cup and said "this cup is the new covenant in my blood" His meaning was that the literal wood with which the cup is made was literally His blood or the new covenant itself. This is called metonymy, and it is obvious on the surface of the text if you do not force the 9th century novelty of transubstantiation into it. The word of a sacrament is a divine promise toward the partaker that he receives the divine blessings signified by the sacrament, but the matter of the sacrament does not contain it. So because Jesus called the bread and wine His body and blood the partaker may be certainly assured that he is spiritually nourished by the true body and blood of the Lord even as his body is physically nourished by bread and wine, but the bread and wine themselves do not hold the tiniest part of His flesh, nor does anyone receive the true body and blood of the Lord unless they believe even if they eat.>>18120237Is it ideal, or is it a matter of Christian liberty? The bible warns against judging your brother for using his liberty and imposing on him laws which God has not.
Religion is so retarded holy shit a thousand posts arguing about the technicalities of yeast and grape juice lmao
>>18120258I'm arguing real presence or spiritual presence as a minimum. It is in a some sense really Jesus. Much as the cup, inclusive of or exclusively consisting of its contents, is a new covenant.
>>18120258I would think actively trying to get unleavened bread and then gloating about it would exceed liberty. But if it was how it was it would be inclusive of it. Much like with if the wine was or wasn't fully fermented vs fresh.
>>18120304I'm pointing out the elements are unchanged. The cup is a sign of the new covenant, which by definition is not properly the cup.
>cheap wine and a crackerAh, the rewards of the Christian...
>>18120321Are you arguing that he is not present in spirit in the wine or bread? Or that he is spiritually present but not physically present as the physical substance has not changed?
>>18120332For Christ to be spiritually present in the elements is a contradiction in terms. The elements undergo no metaphysical changed and remain metaphysically identical before, during and after the administration of the sacrament, but I believe Christ's true body and blood is received spiritually by the believer, in which sense we may speak of real presence. However, He is not physically or locally present. What is seen with the eye, held in the hand and eaten in the mouth is not the true body of the Lord but the sign of His body which is given to seal and excite the spiritual participation of the believer in His true body and blood which he has by faith. So when you drink the wine, if it is indeed alcoholic wine, you are certainly drinking alcohol.
>>18120350If alcohol is perceived as "unclean" for some reason how could it be "unclean" if it was in some sense spiritually the blood of Christ? Much like how a human sacrifice is wrong, excluding the crucifixion?
>>18120350You deny the plain words of scripture.For whoever eats unworthily of the Eucharist, not discerning the *body* of Christ, eats and drinks damnnation.Not the mere symbol of Christ's body, or of his spiritual presence alone, but his actual real body.
>>18120013>Jesus broke the bread which He could not have done if it was wafers.Someone is unfamiliar with the rite of fraction.Yes, the breaking of bread is a core part of the consecration.
>>18120330If you want reward in this life you can have it.You see that everywhere around you, that's what most people take.They don't deny themselves, or carry the cross.Just don't expect anything in the next.
>>18120396Maybe he's ESL and his language uses broke in the context of bread to mean tearing the bread?
>>18120245>She wants me to receive the Holy Ghost>But I'm Catholic!There is no "but". You don't have the Holy Ghost, because you continue to reject Jesus as your savior. That means Hell.
>>18120291>lmaoWhy do you fags always write like this? It broadcasts that you're trash in the same manner as tattoos.
>>18120391Yes, the meaning of that verse I think is literal and proper, but this does nothing for transubstantiation (which nobody before Radbertus had imagined). Paul is then speaking of the thing signified and not the sign, so his meaning is "whoever does not treat the sacrament with respect shows disrespect to the body of Him of whom it is a sacrament". In the very same passage Paul says "whoever eats the bread unworthily" now, I question you, do you eat bread in this sacrament, or flesh? It is you who denies the plain words of scripture that what is eaten is bread.
>did you just put yeast in my LARP meat? off into the flames you go
>>18120750I'm already baptized and I'm not doing it again because it goes against the Apostolic Creed capisce?
>>18120750I'm already baptized and I'm not doing it again because it goes against the Apostolic Creed enjoy whatever you do in your free time
>>18120846Your baptism does you no good as long as you believe in a false gospel of works righteousness and believe in another savior like the false Mary though.
>>18120846>Pretending not to understandThose flames just got hotter. Tick tock.
>>18120187Why do you not extend this same autism to the manufacturing process used to make communion wafers on an industrial scale?
>>18116484Almost all forms of “Christianity” which emerged after Jesus’ crucifixion are a psyop made to get people to worship priests and kings and celebrate Jesus murder rather than live by his message.
>>18120789>transubstantiationAmong the autocephalous orthodox of the east and the orientals, who dispute minor details of this doctrine, you will find *none* who deny that the flesh and blood of Jesus are both truly present in the Eucharist.They both attest a real change or transformation of the elements into his real body and blood, but are not interested in trying to rigorously describe and formulate exactly how that plays out.This isn't a Catholic issue to the exclusion of all other witnesses (this is why you specifically invoke transubstantiation, to paint a picture like Catholics are the only group which affirms the real presence of the body of Christ in the Eucharist), it's an apostolic one.Every denomination with apostolic succession affirms it.If Christ's entire person, Jesus, is present in the Eucharist, then both his nature's as God and man are fully present too. You cannot separate Jesus' nature as a man from his body or his divinity. Men are living souls, that is to say they are composite of flesh shaped from the earth and spirit breathed by God. Jesus in the fullness of manhood and his glorified form (present in the Eucharist) is embodied, this is what Thomas doubted and he put his finger in Christ's wound to be sure.Even the Lutheran affirms this, even if they say the bread is not entirely replaced by Jesus' flesh in the consecration but is eaten alongside it.>the thing signified and not the signIt is not the sign or symbol you have to discern, but the thing in itself.It is the body of Christ being actually present just as it was at the last supper.>the plain words of scripture that what is eaten is breadThe natural bread alone can be used as a mere symbol of Christ's body.Through consecration, it supernaturally becomes the literal flesh and blood of Jesus he speaks of in John 6.If it were clear to his contemporary audience that Jesus was not speaking literally in that passage, so many of his followers would not have left him.
>>18121255>Among the Firsrly, Radbertus wrote more than two hundred years before the churches of Rome and Constantinople broke in schism, which is plenty of time for his opinion to spread to the east and from there to bleed into Egypt, so if you were to prove they all hold to transubstantiation (which I doubt) you would only prove that this innovation appeared before the great schism, which none dispute. There are other points on which they in common subscribe to an innovation and great error, eg the worship of saints and their images, which does not slightly supersede God's word.Second, the reason I point at transubstantiation is precisely because *you* make it the issue by conflating it with real presence. I do not deny the real presence, I deny transubstantiation which is what really concerns me as leading historically to heresy and idolatry. The questions, "do I receive Christ's true body and blood in the Eucharist?" and "do the bread and wine transform into Christ's true body and blood, so that I should worship bread?" are very different, and therefore I do not surrender the Greeks to you so easily.Third, I deny that these churches are to be called "apostolic" when they have all departed so heavily from the apostolic tradition. The only apostolic churches are Protestant. They may have apostolic succession in an acceptable sense of that term, as receiving a ministerial ordination which by long descent ultimately comes from the apostles, but so do we, as our churches came out from the church of Rome. But an apostolic succession of priests and bishops and other such novel offices is not granted, for none of these offices were instituted by authority of Christ, but are an invention of men's brains of which the apostles knew nothing. (1/3)
>>18121255>If Christ's entire person, Jesus, is present in the Eucharist, then both his nature's as God and man are fully present too. You cannot separate Jesus' nature as a man from his body or his divinity. Neither Christ's humanity nor divinity may be separated from each other, but it does not thereby follow that each are transformed into the other so that Christ is not truly a man, and not truly God. Now, it is against the nature of man to exist in many places at once, even a glorified man, so if Jesus is present in every church on earth on the Lord's Day and not only at the right hand of God in heaven, then He cannot be said to be true man. Also, He could not be said to have ascended to heaven, nor to return to judge the living and the dead, because He has remained on the earth even to this day. These statements are made of His human nature, and not His divine which is omnipresent. >It is not the sign or symbol you have to discern, but the thing in itself.This is precisely the same as what I said, except what you add right after about Jesus being present in the room is unfounded and does not follow.>The natural bread alone can be used as a mere symbol of Christ's body.It is remarkable how you completely ignored the point I made and passed by it without comment to give any color of consistency with scripture on this point, as though you are not ashamed to contradict it. I ask again sir, do you eat bread in the sacrament or do you not? What substance enters your mouth?
>>18121255>>18121348Can you guys work on making your posts more concise. Maybe cite to things more idk. If not nbd.
>>18121255>Through consecration, it supernaturally becomes the literal flesh and blood of JesusThere is in the entire bible not a word to support this mythology, let alone John 6 which says nothing of the sacrament at all.>If it were clear to his contemporary audience that Jesus was not speaking literally in that passage, so many of his followers would not have left him.1. It cannot be literal because the literal sense would be oral consumption which cannot be reconciled either with His words here or biblical teaching generally. Those who eat *this* bread will never die, are drawn by the Father to the Son, and He will never cast them out. This is not true of many who eat the sacrament; how will they eat flesh which was not crucified for them and drink blood which was not spilled for them? 2. That which led them to abandon Him was the way He rejected their expectations of filling their bellies and gaining worldly power with the sword, instead pointing them at Himself as the God-man and the way to be reconciled with God and delivered from the devil. They were unregenerate men, so they were disappointed by the gospel.
>>18121353>is not true of many who eat the sacrament; how will they eat flesh which was not crucified for them and drink blood which was not spilled for them?Ah, we have a particular baptist here.I must say, I much prefer the general variety. At least they recognize Calvin was completely full of shit on this point and limited atonement is both not biblical and deeply insulting to Jesus personally.Christ died for the sins of all, not just a few. For there is no respect to persons with God.2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world....18For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:...3For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;4Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.5For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;6Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time....2 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction....18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
>there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought themYes, Jesus Christ purchased even the false teachers with his precious blood.That's why he's going to sit in judgement over ALL men on the last day. Because his sacrifice won them ALL from the enemy.His dominion is universal. He died not just for the elect, but for ALL mankind. The WHOLE world.
>>18121380>Ah, we have a particular baptist here.Who in the world told you I am a Baptist? I have repeatedly denied this through the thread.>At least they recognize Calvin was completely full of shit on this point and limited atonement is both not biblical and deeply insulting to Jesus personally.Your irreverent emotional outburst is very persuasive.>For there is no respect to persons with God.Meaning that God does not respect the type of person, as white or black, rich or poor. But I ask whether God does not respect the distinction of righteous and wicked, and does not damn the entirety of the latter and none of the former?>prooftext spamWith so many prooftexts casually thrown out I will ignore most of them, except the first one. A propitiation is a sacrifice which appeases and removes the wrath of a deity. You do not believe Christ is a propitiation for any man (indeed, He consistently fails to remove the wrath of God even of those who participate in His sacrifice under the repugnant heresy of the mass) let alone each and every man, so that Christ could die for all men, and do everything He could for the salvation of all, and yet none be saved. But for some of all kinds, from every nation in the world, I believe He is the propitiation for them.
>>18121386>Yes, Jesus Christ purchased even the false teachers But He did not purchase them in the same way or with the same price. I deny that He bought them with His blood, which Peter does not say, but they are said to have been bought by analogy because of their former profession. This is held to be a special curse upon apostates which increases their judgement, how could this be if every lost man was bought with His blood and so denies the Lord who bought him? >That's why he's going to sit in judgement over ALL men on the last day. He will sit in judgement over all because He has been appointed over all in His exaltation. This was given to Him after the resurrection (Matt 28:18), and was not at all purchased by His death, in which He procured nothing for Himself nor His Father (who lacked nothing) but only for His elect.>Because his sacrifice won them ALL from the enemyIt is a very cruel joke to say He "won them from the enemy" who remain under the power of the devil and perish forever under their own sins. It is a disgrace for one who calls himself a Christian to try to prove that Christ is a failed Savior.
>>18121408I was actually extremely surprised to see the proof texter himself accusing someone else of being a Calvinist. I am used to it from Baptists/Calvinists exclusively.
>>18121414I am a Calvinist but not a Baptist. I think prooftexting is horrible because this is not how you exegete God's word, this is how you turn it into errors
>>18116484Anyone defending that the grape juice should be alcoholic or not. Is any other religious cunt that jesus refuted
>>18121418Yeah and also he could just cite to the verses rather than post them as confusing slop. Just absolutely schizophrenic behavior. But I do take pure proof texting to be inherently Calvinist as a practice, as usually everyone else also mixes in some Church father points and some scholastic type points. Not that Calvinists don't, they just are the only group that seems to ever exclusively do citations to the text for an extended period. Which is weird as why don't they cite various Calvinist texts? Not really a shortage of those.
>>18121422Because people refuse to do the wine because they are making up extra purity rules. The grape juice isn't because wine is hard to secure, it's because despite Jesus consuming wine, telling parables about it's production and creating it from water, they absolutely hate wine and are trying there hardest to prevent its consumption as if they are vampires who burn at the sight of a cross.
>>18121429>trying there hardesttheir*, chepito
>>18121434Ok. Doesn't make it untrue.
>>18121408>>18121409Just an educated guess.Otherwise you'd have to be a mainline Calvinist, the worst of all.Try and remember that this is an anonymous site, and if you don't use a name or code it's hard to tell who is who; other people can impersonate you and take over a conversation in your stead. Happens to me all the time, because I am not constantly lurking.>whether God does not respect the distinction of righteous and wickedHe sure does. Holding judgement over all men.He still died for the elect and reprobate alike, purchasing them ALL with his own blood.Because he bought all men, he will rightfully exercise judgement over them all.>you do not believe Christ is a propitiation for any man???I said the exact opposite, and scripture agrees.He died for the sins of the whole world. As all partake in the sin of Adam, this condemnation is done away with for all by his blood.The effacation of this free gift is dependent on it's individual reception. As Justin Martyr attested before SPQR, a matter of free will.>not at all purchased by His deathPeter disagrees with this heresy, which is witnessed in scripture.The disobedient perish. There is no joke in that fact.Who will die the second death.>Christ is a failed saviorThese are your words, so say you.Not mine.He truly did defeat the power of death for man, as he is a man.>>18121414You're not used to dealing with someone who treats scripture as part of the apostolic tradition and it shows.
>>18121424Call me a schizo again before the judgement seat of Jesus Christ on the last day.I beg you, please do it one last time.For the crowd. Every idle word will be held to account.>muh citationautismif I make a formatting error, it's because this is a basket weaving forum
>>18121453No because they usually would say look at John 6:1-2 and not post the text.
>>18121459I mean it's true? So like why is it an insult? You probably just need an exorcism. Again. Just cite the verse. Please. And stop hitting enter so much.
>>18121453>mainlineYou mean some liberal hellhole like the PCUSA? Not that either. I don't think you have a clue what you're talking about.>Because he bought all men, he will rightfully exercise judgement over them all.If Christ did not die for all men, would He have no authority to judge all men?>I said the exact opposite, and scripture agrees.I can't imagine the strategy of ignoring your opponent and arguing with your own shadow is found very persuasive by many. Again, propitiation is the actual removal of God's wrath. You do not believe Christ accomplished this for any man, you may believe He made it possible for God to forgive all men, but you do not believe He purchased forgiveness for any man, so that Christ could die for all men, and yet no man be saved. This is the error of synergism.>this condemnation is done away with for all by his bloodThen why are not all saved? Why are not all justified?>Peter disagrees with this heresy, which is witnessed in scripture.Peter says nothing about Christ purchasing anything for Himself, which is why you blustered instead of cited.>These are your wordsAnd your belief.>You're not used to dealing with someone who treats scripture as part of the apostolic traditionMore like treating it as toilet paper
>>18121466See how he uses fewer enters. Please follow that with your posts. And cite to books and verses instead of posting them. I am trying to help.
>>18121464Please continue trying to insult me personally on the last day.That would be very funny, top keks might be had.People have been insulting to me all my natural life for no good reason at all. Sometimes, I think it's just because they're insecure.It has literally never affected me because I don't care about your opinion of me even a little.However, I care a lot when people insult Jesus Christ personally, as those who promulgate the heresy of limited atonement do.But then I try and remember that Jesus himself said he will forgive those who speak a word against him. But blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, neither in this world or the next.Yes, that sin unto death.
>>18121466>IfIf.>you do not believe He purchased forgiveness for any manThese are words that you want to put in my mouth, as a liar would.>toilet paperYour words, not mine.This is the content of your heart shown by the mouth. Just as Luther was obsessed with the toilet, so are you.
>>18121475Isn't there like a Hadith or something about reddit spacing you should be following?
Nooooooooo.Don't use a single space in your formatting.Le reeeeeddit.>t. shill
>>18116517I'm pretty sure American evangelicals and other protestants believe there are some truly saved in the body of Christ who are among the Catholics, Orthodox and other various protestant groups whom said evangelicals/protestants don't theologically agree with. I think you're trying to pit the Catholic and Orthodox notion of there being an original visible church tied in with authoritative succession to the evangelical notion of only God knows who's truly his and therefore part of His body and kingdom when that isn't really necessary. Do all Catholic and Orthodox priests during confession accurately forgive or withhold the sins of a person coming to them for confession? What if a priest 'forgives' someone who in actuality in God's eyes wasn't genuine enough in their repentance and thus God didn't accept it but the priest did?
>>18116484>NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO YOU HAVE TO DRINK FERMENTED GRAPE JUICE SQUASHED BY THE HAIRY UNWASHED FEET OF SMELLY FRENCHMEN OR ELSE IT DOESN'T TRANSUBSTANTIATE INTO THE REAL BLOOD OF CHRIST!!!!Face it faggot, you're just as mentally ill as they are.
>>18116484I totally agree and they're the most cult-like too
>>18116517>I baptize you in the name of Jesus Christ >uhhhh actually that's Moloch Every day new retardations
>>18116484>christian claims other christians aren't real christiansAlways funny to see
>>18121561Jesus says they have the power to forgive and retain sins in the power of the Holy Ghost.Again, akin to binding and loosing.17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.18 Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken these things unto her.19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.20 And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord.21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
>>18121561>>18121674Only Baptists are satanic. Pentecostals aren't.
>>18121349>plenty of time for his opinion to spread to the east and from there to bleed into EgyptIf you said that to an orthodox they would be deeply offended, since their sacramentology is held by them to be truly apostolic. This hypothetical scenario you're positing is not testified by any of the involved parties, it's a rhetorical imposition.One driven by necessity, in order to defend your heresy; your innuendo is not supported by any evidence.>innovationThe only innovation is denying the real presence of the body of Christ in the Eucharist, and that is a protestant one. Formerly, it's a position belonging to the gnostics. You will not find a single church father to defend you on this point. >have all departed so heavily from the apostolic tradition. The only apostolic churches are Protestantpure delusion>as our churches came out from the church of RomeNo, they didn't.They apostatized, and created new false churches. State churches at that.There is only one church, the same Jesus founded. >>18121349>it is against the nature of man to exist in many places at onceIt's supernatural. That's the point.cont
>>18121349>Jesus is present in every church on earth on the Lord's Day and not only at the right hand of God in heaven>He cannot be said to be true manExcept he says he will be with his apostles until the end of the age, while also seating at the right hand.Jesus lives in the hearts of his individual faithful, in that sense his presence is already in a plural form. It's his life in their hearts, and you cannot separate his life from his glorified form.>I ask again I already told you the element of bread is changed to flesh through consecration. This is universally testified in the patristic literature.Per Justin Martyr..."Not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh."Your denial of the body of Christ in the Eucharist corresponds to the gnostic denial of his Incarnation. The Eucharist and Incarnation are intrinsically linked, and the understanding of one must inform the other.To say that the only presence of Christ in the Eucharist is spiritual is to say, as the gnostics did, that Christ never took on man flesh. That his form was only spiritual, due to the evil nature of the flesh.You are saying one of the same things the gnostics did, and at the same time claiming it's apostolic. This is Simon's crime of pretense, that father of heresies.
>>18122860>>18122864>they would be deeply offendedThe modern age is under a spirit of stupor, emotion has replaced rational thought and logic has become foreign to men. I am completely convinced the resurgence of Romanism in modern times is equally a product of irrational emotional impulses as postmodern feminism and other delusions. I think the reason you are a papist is not because you are compelled by any reason (which is completely absent from your screeching) but because you see the pretty idols, you smell the pretty incense, and you hear the pretty chanting, and get all sorts of feelings. There is between these two posts not a hint of rational thought, indeed, I get the impression you didn't bother to read what you're pretending to respond to, because you miss the mark so badly and argue against figments of your own imagination. Most of it consists of empty rhetoric boasting about how right you are, so I am certain it is impossible for anyone to be persuaded by you unless they are both equally as irrational as you and already committed to your religion, and I wonder how it would not be a complete waste of my time to give you attention, when you are clearly unwilling to hear anything but your own imagination?
>>18123141Modernity is marked not by emotion and the organismic account of nature, but by the cold logic of machines and assembly line reasoning. The enlightenment was a reaction of rationalists against religion, you are on the side of the deists and Christ hating scoffers like Voltaire.You're a crypto gnostic.You talk about reason like they talked about gnosis, you talk about reprobates and the elect like they talked about hylics and pneumatics; your knowledge and reason cannot save you.You mock the emotions produced in the adoration of the mass, despite the fact this is just one of the ways interface with divine energy manifests itself. Maybe it's because you've never actually experienced that personally. You can only coldly analyse it, in some kind of perverse academic detachment.A loving relationship with God does make people emotional, especially during worship. But to you, this is an irrational attachment of the flesh.You don't have proper worship in the way St Augustine understood it. That's why it's alien to you.You have no altar.Justin Martyr identifies the connection between the Incarnation and the Eucharist, and he is not alone in this.The reason you have never realized this is because you are mislead by false teachers who have no access to the apostolic tradition or authority.And the reason you are so keen to insult me personally is because you have lost this debate. You have no other response, no way to defend your position.The bible simply does not teach what you are saying, you cannot cite any verse. This is why you complain about proof texts, recoil at the unanimous testimony of the patristic literature. As if it's impossible for a Catholic to cite scripture to support an argument. Your appeal to reason betrays the fact that you cannot appeal to Scripture instead.The denial of the body of Christ in the Eucharist is if not modern innovation, and a simple reskin of the gnostics denial Christ ever had a body at all.
>>18123261Bleat more, goat.
>>18116484What? Baptists don't drink alcohol? I live in Europe. There are baptists somewhere here but I don't know much about them except that they don't do infnacy baptism and that some of them don't watch TV.I thought they were liberal because Bill Clinton was batpist. I thought mormons were the muslims of christianity but with me now knowing that baptists don't drink alcohol and how they behave on 4chan I think it's actually the baptists who behave the most like muslims.
>>18123310>I thought they were liberal because Bill Clinton was batpist. Do you think he'd have won all those elections if he was killing his brain cells with booze?>I think it's actually the baptists who behave the most like muslims.No. We value education and hate pedophilia.
>>18123267If this were a battle, you would be careening headlong away in a rout of terror and confusion. Your camp would be despoiled, your standards thrown to the ground, your drums and horns silenced.To me, your petty insults constitute nothing more than a request for quarter and formal surrender in the hope that the victorious might show mercy.I accept your concession.
>>18123320>Do you think he'd have won all those elections if he was killing his brain cells with booze?How do you reconcile your alcohol ban with the New Testament and Jesus drinking wine and giving wine to his disciples?
>>18123332Boy, that sounds very impressive. Tell me more about how great you are.
>>18123334It was non-alcoholic wine akagrape juice. Not that you care; watch.
>>18123335Credit for this victory belongs to God, not me.It was no product of my own reason or ability, since human reason is vain and the wisdom of this world is foolishness to God, but through the empowerment of the Holy Spirit and the communion of saints.Truly I stand on the shoulders of giants come before, and no greater rampart of strength I can imagine but the witness of saints to the life of Christ, and the deposit of faith, his precious blood in the holy sacrament.
>>18123372Hi rodent. You're probably going to a lower hell than the fag you're debating, judging by the way you write. Have fun with that.
>>18123372>Credit for this victory belongs to God, not me.Imagine putting this embarrassing clown-show on God. I don't envy you. >It was no product of my own reason or abilityYou're sure right about that
>>18123376Unclean words of an unclean animal come from an unclean heart.The rat is glorified compared to you, for you have defiled yourself by it with your tongue.Repent, sinner.Already the axe is laid to the root of this tree bearing no good fruit.It will be thrown into the fire, because it does not produce in faith with the work of the husbandman but is barren.Can an evil tree produce good fruit?Yet so, the Lord may turn evil things to good purposes. In our case, the evil you speak serves to contrast with righteousness. One needs only look and see the difference between us, and they will see the truth more clearly for the lie that pertains in arrogance to stand against it.Wherefore, by their fruits ye shall know them.>>18123397I am not ashamed of Christ, who delivered me out of the hands of the wicked.The reproach of vain and hateful men is a blessing to me. When I endure empty mockery and weak insults for his name and his church in all patience, and overcome these scoffers all in the truth.These words leave your mouth with the taste of bitterness and poison lingering, but I receive them as delicious and fragrant honey. Knowing they are all accounted for.15 For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:16 As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God....20 For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God.21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:...16 Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.17 For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing.
