game Reform Club

[Fidei Defensor]

If the Church is not militant, if it continues this pacifism Christ did not advocate, for He said, “if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one,” (Luke 22:36) we will find ourselves in another holocaust. For in 1915 the Armenian Christians were nearly annihilated (1.5 Million dead), in the 1940’s over 12 Million Christians were slaughtered alongside 7 Million Jews (Rosemary Schindler) . Today In Africa, in three countries Christians are being slaughtered and in Syria Recep Endogen, Pres of Turkey had declared holy war on Christians, as a result Syrian Christians are being genocided. The only thing keeping Christian Syriac women and children alive is their husbands are fighting back. 

Christ expects us to use our brains and tools to protect our loved ones. Self defense is a right, the right to preserve our lives is God ordained. King David wasn’t unable to byild the temple because he killed in war, the “blood on his hands” was fornicating with Bathsheba, getting her pregnant and having her husband Uriah murdered. God is in favor of self prservation, but not murder (selfish killing, revenge and out of personal lusts). 

[David1701]

1 hour ago, Fidei Defensor said:

If the Church is not militant, if it continues this pacifism Christ did not advocate, for He said, “if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one,” (Luke 22:36) we will find ourselves in another holocaust. For in 1915 the Armenian Christians were nearly annihilated (1.5 Million dead), in the 1940’s over 12 Million Christians were slaughtered alongside 7 Million Jews (Rosemary Schindler) . Today In Africa, in three countries Christians are being slaughtered and in Syria Recep Endogen, Pres of Turkey had declared holy war on Christians, as a result Syrian Christians are being genocided. The only thing keeping Christian Syriac women and children alive is their husbands are fighting back. 

Christ expects us to use our brains and tools to protect our loved ones. Self defense is a right, the right to preserve our lives is God ordained. King David wasn’t unable to byild the temple because he killed in war, the “blood on his hands” was fornicating with Bathsheba, getting her pregnant and having her husband Uriah murdered. God is in favor of self prservation, but not murder (selfish killing, revenge and out of personal lusts). 

Certainly, go ahead and buy a sword, or a gun (if you are in a country which allows it); but don't use it on people.

Regarding self-defence: if you are attacked and struck on the cheek, what do you do?

A) Engage in self-defence and fight back

B) Turn the other cheek and allow your assailant to strike that one as well

[Fidei Defensor]

3 hours ago, David1701 said:

Certainly, go ahead and buy a sword, or a gun (if you are in a country which allows it); but don't use it on people.

Regarding self-defence: if you are attacked and struck on the cheek, what do you do?

A) Engage in self-defence and fight back

B) Turn the other cheek and allow your assailant to strike that one as well

In Jewish culture in Jesus’ times, to turn the other cheek meant not to recieve the rebuke again. The way people slapped with their hand, turning the other cheek made it so they couldn't hit you again. (Jewish Archaeologist, Israel). 

Edited August 11, 2020 by Fidei Defensor

[David1701]

14 hours ago, Fidei Defensor said:

In Jewish culture in Jesus’ times, to turn the other cheek meant not to recieve the rebuke again. The way people slapped with their hand, turning the other cheek made it so they couldn't hit you again. (Jewish Archaeologist, Israel). 

That interpretation does not fit the context at all!

Matt. 5:38-42 (VW)

38 You have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.
39 But I tell you, Do not resist evil. But whoever hits you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.
40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also.
41 And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two.
42 Give to him who asks of you, and from him who wants to borrow from you, do not turn away.

The whole context is about not resisting evil, but allowing it to do more against you than even it initially wants to.

[Fidei Defensor]

13 hours ago, David1701 said:

That interpretation does not fit the context at all!

Matt. 5:38-42 (VW)

38 You have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.
39 But I tell you, Do not resist evil. But whoever hits you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.
40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also.
41 And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two.
42 Give to him who asks of you, and from him who wants to borrow from you, do not turn away.

The whole context is about not resisting evil, but allowing it to do more against you than even it initially wants to.

And yet Jesus took out a whip which was a rebuke: 

“13 The Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
14 In the temple he found those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons, and the money-changers sitting there.
15 And making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and oxen. And he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables.
16 And he told those who sold the pigeons, "Take these things away; do not make my Father's house a house of trade."
17 His disciples remembered that it was written, "Zeal for your house will consume me." (John 2:13-17)

There is a time to raise up arms ans to rebuke with force. 

[David1701]

14 hours ago, Fidei Defensor said:

And yet Jesus took out a whip which was a rebuke: 

“13 The Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
14 In the temple he found those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons, and the money-changers sitting there.
15 And making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and oxen. And he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables.
16 And he told those who sold the pigeons, "Take these things away; do not make my Father's house a house of trade."
17 His disciples remembered that it was written, "Zeal for your house will consume me." (John 2:13-17)

There is a time to raise up arms ans to rebuke with force. 

Yes there is; although I'm unsure how you think this helps your side of the particular topic we are discussing.

[Deadworm]

On 7/29/2020 at 12:06 PM, David1701 said:

David" They claim that an RC priest has the power to conjure the Lord from heaven and turn him into a wafer-god (they don't word it like this, of course)."  There is zero biblical evidence for this blasphemy.

This is a simple-minded caricature that is too bigoted to be worthy of discussion.

David: "They claim that the Mass is the re-enactment of the cross, in a bloodless sacrifice, repeated over and over and over again.  This is blasphemous and contradicts the once-for-all efficacy of the cross."

FYou are oblivious to the fact that the NT is comfortable with the metaphorical language of reenactment:

"In my flesh I am completing what is lacking of the sufferings of Christ for the sake of His body, the church (Colossians 1:25)."                                                                                                                                                                    "On their own they are crucifying again the Son of God and holding Him in contempt (Hebrews 6:6)."
 

Catholics are far more cross-centered in their theology than evangelicals: their Eucharistic theology honors Paul's resolve: "I determined to know nothing among you, except Christ and Him crucified (1 Cor. 2:2)."                                   

David: "Phrases like, "This is my body..." are metaphors."

Of course, and Catholics recognize this.  But Jesus teaches that the bread and wine are "real food" and "real drink" and that those who take Communion "eat Me," and by doing so, experience Christ's unique presence as manifested in this sacramental act: "Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them (John 6:56)."  Christ's presence in the Eucharistic elements is so real  that believers can get sick and die simply by failing to discern His body" in this sacramental act (1 Cor 11:28-30).

 

[David1701]

13 hours ago, Deadworm said:

David" They claim that an RC priest has the power to conjure the Lord from heaven and turn him into a wafer-god (they don't word it like this, of course)."  There is zero biblical evidence for this blasphemy.

This is a simple-minded caricature that is too bigoted to be worthy of discussion.

This is the appeal to ridicule fallacy.

Quote

 

David: "They claim that the Mass is the re-enactment of the cross, in a bloodless sacrifice, repeated over and over and over again.  This is blasphemous and contradicts the once-for-all efficacy of the cross."

FYou are oblivious to the fact that the NT is comfortable with the metaphorical language of reenactment:

"In my flesh I am completing what is lacking of the sufferings of Christ for the sake of His body, the church (Colossians 1:25)."                                                                                                                                                                    "On their own they are crucifying again the Son of God and holding Him in contempt (Hebrews 6:6)."

 

Except that the RC re-enactment is not metaphorical; also, your quote from Col. 1:25, is not a re-enactment of any kind at all!

 

Quote

Catholics are far more cross-centered in their theology than evangelicals: their Eucharistic theology honors Paul's resolve: "I determined to know nothing among you, except Christ and Him crucified (1 Cor. 2:2)."

I think you mean ROMAN Catholics, don't you?  They are Mass and Pope-centred, rather than cross of Christ-centred.                                  

 

Quote

David: "Phrases like, "This is my body..." are metaphors."

Of course, and Catholics recognize this.  But Jesus teaches that the bread and wine are "real food" and "real drink" and that those who take Communion "eat Me," and by doing so, experience Christ's unique presence as manifested in this sacramental act: "Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them (John 6:56)."  Christ's presence in the Eucharistic elements is so real  that believers can get sick and die simply by failing to discern His body" in this sacramental act (1 Cor 11:28-30).

What you are referring to sounds more like consubstantiation than transubstantiation.  The ROMAN Catholics teach that the wafer is LITERALLY turned into the body and blood of the Lord.  This is fully in line with ancient pagan religions and completely contrary to biblical Christianity.

Edited August 14, 2020 by David1701

[Deadworm]

20 minutes ago, David1701 said:

 

David: "your quote from Col. 1:25, is not a re-enactment of any kind at all!"

Yes, it is in the sense that Paul shares in the fellowship of Christ's sufferings (Philippians 3:10).  Surely you don't construe Colossians 1;25 as a literal reference to the "lack" or deficiency of Christ's sufferings!

Notice how David ducks my allusion to the motif of reenactment in Hebrews 6:6.

David: "They are Mass and Pope-centred, rather than cross of Christ-centred."                                  

The Mass makes them more cross-centered than the typical evangelical emphasis.  I often hear evangelicals ridicule Catholics for putting "a little man" on their crucifixes.   "Don't they believe in the Resurrection?"  these evangelicals ask.   Yes they do, but they place supreme value on Jesus' atoning blood on the cross and their crucifixes stress this in a way that evangelical crosses typically do not.

David: "What you are referring to sounds more like consubstantiation than transubstantiation." 

I don't accept Transubstantiation, but I consider Real Presence closer to Jesus' view than the evangelical merely symbolic view, that demeans the significance of this sacrament. 

David: "The ROMAN Catholics teach that the wafer is LITERALLY turned into the body and blood of the Lord."

No, they don't; they accept the Aristotelian view espoused by Thomas Aquinas.

 

[David1701]

5 hours ago, Deadworm said:

 

The above is how your post shows up, when I use the quote function to reply to it, without correcting your formatting.  Please fix your formatting...

Quote

 

David: "your quote from Col. 1:25, is not a re-enactment of any kind at all!"

Yes, it is in the sense that Paul shares in the fellowship of Christ's sufferings (Philippians 3:10). 

 

Sharing in fellowship is not a re-enactment.  That is not rocket science to understand.

Quote

Surely you don't construe Colossians 1;25 as a literal reference to the "lack" or deficiency of Christ's sufferings!

I think you mean Col. 1:24.

Col. 1:24 (WEB) Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and fill up on my part that which is lacking of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body’s sake, which is the assembly;

I'm sure that you are aware that there are different interpretations of this difficult verse.  My view is that it refers to the afflictions Paul suffered in his flesh (referred to as the "afflictions of Christ", because we are His body on earth).  In other words, God had purposes to fulfil for the assembly, through Paul's sufferings, and those sufferings were, as yet, incomplete (hence "lacking"). 

This is not a re-enactment of the cross, for several reasons, one of which is that what Christ suffered on the cross accomplished everything that it was intended to accomplish; it was a one-off, so that any re-enactment would be to deny that fact and would be blasphemous.

Quote

Notice how David ducks my allusion to the motif of reenactment in Hebrews 6:6.

I didn't duck; but it's wearisome to answer every one of your numerous blunders.

As I've already pointed out, any re-enactment of the cross would be blasphemous.

Heb. 6:6 (WEB) and then fell away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance; seeing they crucify the Son of God for themselves again, and put him to open shame.

The sense in which they are crucifying the Son of God again, is in blasphemously justifying those who crucified him in the first place.  They do this by rejecting the Lord, having known about him and his teachings.

Quote

 

David: "They are Mass and Pope-centred, rather than cross of Christ-centred."                                  

The Mass makes them more cross-centered than the typical evangelical emphasis.  I often hear evangelicals ridicule Catholics for putting "a little man" on their crucifixes.   "Don't they believe in the Resurrection?"  these evangelicals ask.   Yes they do, but they place supreme value on Jesus' atoning blood on the cross and their crucifixes stress this in a way that evangelical crosses typically do not.

 

The Mass is one of the most evil practices ever devised by man.  It makes an idol out of a wafer, which is paraded around in a monstrance, for the idolaters to worship.  This is mocking Christ to the uttermost and the poor, gullible congregants don't even realise it.

This blasphemous "bloodless sacrifice", re-enacts that which was once and for all, thus denying that the Lord accomplished eternal redemption, by that one act.

A crucifix is a reminder of the fact that the Mass keeps Christ on the cross, over and over and over and over again.  Anyway, we are told to carry our cross, not wear it.

Quote

 

David: "What you are referring to sounds more like consubstantiation than transubstantiation." 

I don't accept Transubstantiation, but I consider Real Presence closer to Jesus' view than the evangelical merely symbolic view, that demeans the significance of this sacrament. 

 

A sign (as in "significance") is a perceptible indication of something not immediately apparent.  That is EXACTLY what the memorial of the Lord's Supper (Communion) is.  It is a SIGN, pointing to the reality of what Christ accomplished on the cross.

Certainly the Lord will be present in the Communion service, just as he is present in praise and in the Holy Spirit-led preaching of the word; but that is nothing to do with the wafer and wine and everything to do with the hearts of the people.

Quote

 

David: "The ROMAN Catholics teach that the wafer is LITERALLY turned into the body and blood of the Lord."

No, they don't; they accept the Aristotelian view espoused by Thomas Aquinas.

 

"Transubstantiation means the change of the whole substance of bread into the substance of the Body of Christ and of the whole substance of wine into the substance of his Blood. This change is brought about in the eucharistic prayer through the efficacy of the word of Christ and by the action of the Holy Spirit. However, the outward characteristics of bread and wine, that is the “eucharistic species”, remain unaltered."

https://www.vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html#The sacraments of Christian initiation

Q.E.D.