meta user
network profile
| bio | website | |
|---|---|---|
| location | Taiwan | |
| age | ||
| visits | member for | 1 year, 8 months |
| seen | 5 hours ago | |
| stats | profile views | 169 |
I often chose best answers not because they are the best, but because I have to choose a best answer. Please, don't take offense to it.
|
Apr 7 |
comment |
Why the Eucharist is never mentioned in the book of Hebrews? @Caleb (5) - The only answer that sounds plausible to me and very logical is that Eucharist is not really as important as, for example, believing in Christ and in His work on the cross. Hence, I chose the third answer by the.midget as the best one. Should any other answer arrive that looks more logical and more convincing to me, I will choose that one then, but so far it hasn’t happened. |
|
Apr 7 |
comment |
Why the Eucharist is never mentioned in the book of Hebrews? @Caleb (4) - Also, the book of Hebrews is famous for explaining proto-types and symbols, not for speaking in types and symbols. In fact, I can’t find one place in this book where the author would speak in types and figures and not in plain language. Therefore, the belief that the Eucharist is “implied” by the words of author in chapter 7 on Melchizedek, where the author in fact explains the type of Melchizedek, sounds also very unconvincing to me (cwallenpoole’s answer). |
|
Apr 7 |
comment |
Why the Eucharist is never mentioned in the book of Hebrews? @Caleb (3) - It is obvious that the book wasn’t written spontaneously at one setting. On the other hand, unlike, say, the book of Acts, it does have as its aim to touch upon crucial matters of Christian faith – at the end of each section covering one crucial matter there is a strong warning not to fall away from believing in that matter. Therefore, the position that holds Eucharist as one of such important matters and at the same time considers that it was not mentioned in Hebrews just “because the book’s topic is the High Priesthood of Christ” (Alypius’ answer) sounds very unconvincing to me. |
|
Apr 7 |
comment |
Why the Eucharist is never mentioned in the book of Hebrews? @Caleb (2) - If Eucharist was the life or death matter, than it surely should’ve been mentioned among other crucial matters pertaining to the Christian faith in the book of Hebrews. On one hand, the book of Hebrews is quite comprehensive and very consistent. It is clear that the author had a certain structure on his mind that he followed while writing his book. It is also clear that the author didn’t have any time constraints while he was writing it. |
|
Apr 7 |
comment |
Why the Eucharist is never mentioned in the book of Hebrews? @Caleb (1) “If you want something about the book of Hebrews, an answer that just attacks Catholicism shouldn't be valid” - I don’t view the answer as the one that “just attacks Catholicism”. In fact, while reading it, I couldn’t care less about where that teaching (transubstantiation) came from – Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Protestantism or elsewhere. And, after all, the question itself was not about that teaching or its origin. |
|
Mar 19 |
comment |
A set of traits common for all protestant believers @AffableGeek - Can you elaborate a bit? |
|
Mar 7 |
comment |
Why did Jesus never address God by the name “Jehovah”? "For more information about the name and who today is carrying on Jesus's work of sanctifying the name" - Thank you for this invitation, however, I want to get the answer to this question of mine from Christians first. |
|
Mar 5 |
comment |
Does the Bible have any proof that Jesus Christ is the Only-begotten Son of God? So, how does that change the point I made in my previous comment? No doubt, David said that. However, David didn't say "you have begotten ONLY me". Bible is very precise in this matter. The ONLY-begotten-ness is ascribed in the Bible only to Jesus. Yes, David was used in the Bible as a prototype of Jesus, however, David's sonship is way lower then the sonship of Jesus, which is indicated in such passages as Matthew 22:41-46 and Acts 2: 25-34. Jesus' sonship is quite unique, only He possesses that kind of sonship, hence, in the Bible He is referred to as the only-begotten Son of God. |
|
Mar 5 |
comment |
Does the Bible have any proof that Jesus Christ is the Only-begotten Son of God? Did you miss the fact that Jesus is referred to in the Bible as the ONLY-begotten Son? It's true that Adam is called a son of God, and the book of Job, for example, speaks of sons of God, as well as that psalm that you are quoting, however, Bible also calls Jesus the Only-begotten Son of God, a title that has not been given in the Bible to Adam or anyone else. So, if you accept the whole Bible, and not just some of its parts, you must acknowledge that the sonship of Jesus is quite different from that of Adam or others. It is in terms of this unique sonship that Jesus is the Only-begotten One. |
|
Feb 20 |
comment |
Relationships between God the Father, Mary and the two natures of Jesus Christ WOW!!! Thank you. I agree with Alypius, the source provided in this answer really makes it all! |
|
Feb 13 |
comment |
Universalism in the Orthodox Church? I couldn't have missed a question asked by me :) |
|
Jan 27 |
comment |
Relationships between God the Father, Mary and the two natures of Jesus Christ Thank you for this answer! |
|
Jan 23 |
comment |
Why did Paul say “I am pure from the blood of all men”? Why would he then need to tell the elders from Ephesus about it at the very last time meeting them? They knew it all too well that Paul hadn't killed anyone since his conversion. It just doesn't make any sense mentioning that to them. |
|
Jan 17 |
comment |
God the Father's possession of a body of flesh and bones "There is considerable debate about whether "God" in the Old Testament refers to Jesus or His Father"" - I don't quite see why you are saying it here. How is this related to what is said in the answer? Can you, please, elaborate? |
|
Jan 17 |
comment |
God the Father's possession of a body of flesh and bones "NT quite consistently reaffirms that ... the Father is invisible eternal spirit only" - Where exactly does NT say states that the Father is invisible spirit only? |
|
Jan 17 |
comment |
God the Father's possession of a body of flesh and bones Even though I don't see much OT hermeneutics in your answer, I must thank you for bringing up a very strong logical point, which is in the very first sentence of your answer. The only case, in which this point wouldn't work is God's body of flesh and bones' not being products of the universe. |
|
Jan 16 |
comment |
God the Father's possession of a body of flesh and bones @Matt - "That's fine, but it has nothing to do with using the word "Mormon"" - In informing you of my intention to take all the words "Mormon" out, I was meaning to say that I was about to get rid of any reference to this particular group of people that claim to be Christians and the only true church on earth. It could be any of such words like "Mormons", "LDS", "Followers of Joseph Smith", "LDS members", etc. - it just turned out that in my question I was using only the word "Mormons" as a reference. I am sorry for not being clear enough in my wording. |
|
Jan 16 |
comment |
God the Father's possession of a body of flesh and bones @Matt - Okay. Let me re-edit it. I will completely take the words "Mormons" out. In this case, hopefully, it will not sound combative then |
|
Jan 16 |
comment |
God the Father's possession of a body of flesh and bones @MaskedPlant - "It also feels combative to then ask them to reconcile their..." - I am afraid I don't get the grammar in this sentence and, therefore, don't quite get its meaning. Can you, please, re-write or explain it to me? |
|
Jan 16 |
comment |
God the Father's possession of a body of flesh and bones @MaskedPlant - "I think the question is confusing, and combative because it is asking for a specific belief of a specific religion, to reconcile that belief with things they do not believe in" - That sentence about God the Father's omnipresence was not written by me. It was added later on by Affable Geek. I think I need to delete it. |
