The problem with sacraments

[Ezra]

3 hours ago, Joline said:

Jewish thought is not Pharisaic?

Depends on what you mean by "Jewish thought".  The Pharisees were but one of many Jewish sects, and Rabbinic Judaism is derived from them. But all the apostles were Jews also, and their thoughts were in line with God and Christ.

The Pharisees certainly did not believe in Sacramentalism, but in keeping the letter of the Law and putting a *hedge* around the Law.  Sacramentalism has an entirely different origin.  Circumcision did not *confer grace* on Jews as the RCC believes the baptism does.  Catholicism invented a human priesthood separate from the Royal Priesthood of all believers, and came up with their own inventions.

"The Catholic system of Christianity, both Greek and Roman, is sacramental and sacerdotal. The saving grace of Christ is conveyed to men through the channel of seven sacraments, or "mysteries," administered by ordained priests, who receive members into the church by baptism, accompany them through the various stages of life, and dismiss them by extreme unction into the other world. A literal priesthood requires a literal sacrifice, and this is the repetition of Christ's one sacrifice on the cross offered by the priest in the mass from day to day. The power of the mass extends not only to the living, but even to departed spirits in purgatory, abridging their sufferings, and hastening their release and transfer to heaven." (History of the Christian Church by Philip Schaff).

 

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Ezra said:

,Depends on what you mean by "Jewish thought".  The Pharisees were but one of many Jewish sects, and Rabbinic Judaism is derived from them. But all the apostles were Jews also, and their thoughts were in line with God and Christ.

The Pharisees certainly did not believe in Sacramentalism, but in keeping the letter of the Law and putting a *hedge* around the Law.  Sacramentalism has an entirely different origin.  Circumcision did not *confer grace* on Jews as the RCC believes the baptism does.  Catholicism invented a human priesthood separate from the Royal Priesthood of all believers, and came up with their own inventions.

"The Catholic system of Christianity, both Greek and Roman, is sacramental and sacerdotal. The saving grace of Christ is conveyed to men through the channel of seven sacraments, or "mysteries," administered by ordained priests, who receive members into the church by baptism, accompany them through the various stages of life, and dismiss them by extreme unction into the other world. A literal priesthood requires a literal sacrifice, and this is the repetition of Christ's one sacrifice on the cross offered by the priest in the mass from day to day. The power of the mass extends not only to the living, but even to departed spirits in purgatory, abridging their sufferings, and hastening their release and transfer to heaven." (History of the Christian Church by Philip Schaff).

 

Actually all Judaism believed sacramentalism. Judaism was sacramental as it was Levitical therefore sacerdotal. It has always been a FORM OF sacramentalism. As I said, they believed they were sanctified by the TORAH. And that is because they were. As for the Pharisees, they were those which sought to also get around the law as their situation changed. The prosbul was the most blatant example of such things. The Pharisees were innovators of the law.

It was the sadducees that kept to the letter and rejected the traditions of the Pharisees

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, Joline said:

 Actually all Judaism believed sacramentalism. Judaism was sacramental as it was Levitical therefore sacerdotal. It has always been a FORM OF sacramentalism. As I said, they believed they were sanctified by the TORAH. And that is because they were. As for the Pharisees, they were those which sought to also get around the law as their situation changed. The prosbul was the most blatant example of such things. The Pharisees were innovators of the law.

It was the sadducees that kept to the letter and rejected the traditions of the Pharisees

 

There goes the jubilee.........No more release from debt to the poor.

The prosbul

From the expression "that which is thine with thy brother thine hand shall release" (Deut. xv. 3), the Rabbis derived the law that if one delivered his debts to the court, he might collect them after the Sabbatical year (Sifre ad loc.; Sheb. x. 2; comp. Maimonides' commentary ad loc.; Giṭ. 37a). Thus the institution of Hillel would appear to be only a suggestion to the people to take advantage of a law which already existed (it is probable, however, that this law was derived after the promulgation of the institution of the prosbul, in order to make it appear to rest on Biblical authority). Later authorities made Hillel's institution an extension of this law. According to the law as derived from the Biblical passage, the principle of limitation by the entrance of the Sabbatical year did not apply in a case where the promissory notes were delivered to the court and the court was thereby made the creditor. Hillel's institution provided that the delivery of the notes was not necessary; that even when the loan was contracted by word of mouth ("milweh'al-peh"), the declaration in the presence of the court was sufficient to allow the creditor to collect his debt even after the Sabbatical year

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Qnts2 said:

,,Ok, I would  strongly disagree. Since the scripture is from God and perfect, there is nothing better then was received by the Apostles. The Apostles being the first Christians had it all, put into practice, and the modern Christians have not made strides forward compared to the Apostles.

The OT teachings are not inferior since they were good and perfect from God. The fault wasn't with the OT, but the fault was with fallen man who was not good or perfect. Therefore the OT is not inferior, but man is inferior so the New Covenant, which does not depend on the practices of men to achieve it's purposes, is better.

The old covenant was inferior to the new. Resposibilty, and authority was given to the carnal nature. Therefore this made it weak

[Guest shiloh357]

4 hours ago, Joline said:

Well, I don't know where Jewish thought comes from outside the Pharisees, as that is the Judaism which survived.

As for sacramentalism, a rose by any other name is still a rose. You all just call the results of what you obey to bring blessing, sanctification, grace.

So who here cannot be trusted?

Good day to you shiloh

Jewish thought has developed over time.   You cannot just say that Jewish thought is Pharisaism.  It is far more complicated than that.  There is residue of Pharisaic tradition, but  Jewish thought cannot be relegated to a 2,000 year old religious sect that is no longer in existence today. 

No, there is no sacramentalism in Judaism.   You are trying to force that idea on to Judaism to support your argument because you want to be right, but the truth is that you are incorrect.

There is nothing in Judaism that even parallels the RCC sacraments as nothing in Judaism confers grace on individuals in Judaism.   Again, in Judaism, everything in corporate.  Their view of salvation is a corporate deliverance of the nation.  Judaism proper doesn't possess the idea of personal salvation, because they don't see themselves as "sinners."  They don't believe in original sin.   So why would they need grace or sanctification?    They don't possess the kind of theological worldview that would require any additional grace or blessing. 

You don't really understand Judaism and only someone without a basic understanding of Judaism would assume that  Judaism and Pharisaism are the same thing. 

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Jewish thought has developed over time.   You cannot just say that Jewish thought is Pharisaism.  It is far more complicated than that.  There is residue of Pharisaic tradition, but  Jewish thought cannot be relegated to a 2,000 year old religious sect that is no longer in existence today. 

No, there is no sacramentalism in Judaism.   You are trying to force that idea on to Judaism to support your argument because you want to be right, but the truth is that you are incorrect.

There is nothing in Judaism that even parallels the RCC sacraments as nothing in Judaism confers grace on individuals in Judaism.   Again, in Judaism, everything in corporate.  Their view of salvation is a corporate deliverance of the nation.  Judaism proper doesn't possess the idea of personal salvation, because they don't see themselves as "sinners."  They don't believe in original sin.   So why would they need grace or sanctification?    They don't possess the kind of theological worldview that would require any additional grace or blessing. 

You don't really understand Judaism and only someone without a basic understanding of Judaism would assume that  Judaism and Pharisaism are the same thing. 

Shiloh you are so off the mark here...................

What has original sin to do with it?

They believe in corporate salvation.................they also believe in corporate punishment as well. It is because of the LAW of a CARNAL COMMANDMENT.

Yes, I can relegate thought to a 2000 year old sect. As their oral torah is claimed to be older than that. They only wrote it down so it would not be lost.

What do they care if you believe that it came from Sinai, or the great assembly? They don't care, but it does go to prove your statements faulty.

receiving blessings, sanctification, and grace for ritualistic works is indeed sacramentalism. Moses law is after all a law of works, not faith.

[Guest shiloh357]

2 minutes ago, Joline said:

Shiloh you are so off the mark here...................

What has original sin to do with it?

They believe in corporate salvation.................they also believe in corporate punishment as well. It is because of the LAW of a CARNAL COMMANDMENT.

Yes, I can relegate thought to a 2000 year old sect. As their oral torah is claimed to be older than that. They only wrote it down so it would not be lost.

What do they care if you believe that it came from Sinai, or the great assembly? They don't care, but it does go to prove your statements faulty.

receiving blessings, sanctification, and grace for ritualistic works is indeed sacramentalism. Moses law is after all a law of works, not faith.

I mentioned original sin to help you understand where traditional Judaism stands, theology.   Sacramentalism only works if you believe you  need it.  And only those who see themselves as sinners would have a need for sacramentalism.   Jews in Judaism don't see themselves as sinners, so they would not have a sacramental concept in their religion, or in their view of salvation.    They only see salvation in physical terms and so there is nothing sacramental in it, thus you cannot compare to RCC theology, which is sacramental.

No, you cannot relegate it to a 2,000 year old sect because Judaism isn't the religion of the Pharisees.   Judaism is a religious adjustment to the fall of the temple in 70 AD.  The religion of Judaism has been changing and adapting to new realities for 2,000 years.  It is not Pharisaism.

The Oral Torah wasn't written down until around 200 years AFTER Christ. It didn't exist until 250 BC. 

There is no "receiving blessings, sanctification and grace" in Judaism.  That is not at all part of their religion and you are trying to force something that is not true, upon it.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

I mentioned original sin to help you understand where traditional Judaism stands, theology.   Sacramentalism only works if you believe you  need it.  And only those who see themselves as sinners would have a need for sacramentalism.   Jews in Judaism don't see themselves as sinners, so they would not have a sacramental concept in their religion, or in their view of salvation.    They only see salvation in physical terms and so there is nothing sacramental in it, thus you cannot compare to RCC theology, which is sacramental.

No, you cannot relegate it to a 2,000 year old sect because Judaism isn't the religion of the Pharisees.   Judaism is a religious adjustment to the fall of the temple in 70 AD.  The religion of Judaism has been changing and adapting to new realities for 2,000 years.  It is not Pharisaism.

The Oral Torah wasn't written down until around 200 years AFTER Christ. It didn't exist until 250 BC. 

There is no "receiving blessings, sanctification and grace" in Judaism.  That is not at all part of their religion and you are trying to force something that is not true, upon it.

Well you need to go tell that to the Rabbis. You need to tell that to their historians....Where are you getting your history from now Shiloh? It was the sect of the Pharisees which established the new Sanhedrin under the authority of the Emporer Vespasian. Hey now, there is another parallel huh? A Roman Emperor established religious sect..........................

[Guest shiloh357]

22 minutes ago, Joline said:

Well you need to go tell that to the Rabbis. You need to tell that to their historians....Where are you getting your history from now Shiloh? It was the sect of the Pharisees which established the new Sanhedrin under the authority of the Emporer Vespasian. Hey now, there is another parallel huh? A Roman Emperor established religious sect..........................

I don't need to tell the Rabbis their religion isn't sacramental.  They are not saying that it is.   It's not my history.   I think the problem is that history doesn't line up with your argument and you are historically illiterate where the Jewish religion is concerned.  

Vespasian did not establish a religious sect.  The Sanhedrin was not a religious sect.   It was a judicial/legal body.   Vespasian allowed the Jews to attempt install a new Sanhedrin, but he did not establish it, per se.  And that attempt to re-establish the Sanhedrin was a failure just like many of the attempts to re-establish it later failed. That is some thing you made up   And no there is no parallel.

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

I don't need to tell the Rabbis their religion isn't sacramental.  They are not saying that it is.   It's not my history.   I think the problem is that history doesn't line up with your argument and you are historically illiterate where the Jewish religion is concerned.  

Vespasian did not establish a religious sect.  The Sanhedrin was not a religious sect.   It was a judicial/legal body.   Vespasian allowed the Jews to attempt install a new Sanhedrin, but he did not establish it, per se.  And that attempt to re-establish the Sanhedrin was a failure just like many of the attempts to re-establish it later failed. That is some thing you made up   And no there is no parallel.

Look, I never said the Rabbis held their religious rituals as sacraments. Because I know they deny that. I spoke of the history of their oral torah. Which is the Pharisees. Vespasian Established the rule of one sect of Judaism in the Empire, just as some claim with Constantine concerning Christianity. The roman Emperors established the religious authorities of the religions legalized in the Empire. That was the way it was.....But Vespasian chose one sect to rule over Jew's and Judaism.

You think I have a problem with lining up history? I really am growing tired of your problem with reading comprehension with my posts.

Sacramentalism is that which one engages a ritual unto a benefit to sanctify. Which Catholicism places as grace or graces. They are all seen as by Gods grace.

Judaism holds the same. They are sanctified by the Commandments, It is a form of sacramentalism, from circumcision to death. I am done here. You on the other hand want to take the distinctions and make them a difference , it is not. It is form, a form a type of sacramentalism.

Fare well