Real Presence

AJB4

Senior Veteran
Sep 21, 2006
2,989
92
New Zealand
✟11,180.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
I know that the CoC generally believes in Memorialism in the Lord's Supper only, but I've just been wondering why lately.

I'm interested in Catholic and Orthodox church (particularly Orthodox), and they point out the fact that Real Presence is what all of the early church fathers believed and what Christians in general believed up until post-Reformation scientific ages *ahem* Reformed theologian Huldrych Zwingli*ahem*.

One could say that all of the early church fathers were wrong, but where does history ever present an alternate belief? Where were people at the time of the ECFs who ever questioned this belief? It seemed to be THE universal Christian belief. Here are early church father quotes about RP.

In my CoC, Real Presence is taught as a "tradition of men", but I was just wondering, since the CoC claims to be the restored church, how do we justify a view that only came so late in history, and still know without a doubt if it's the correct teaching, and that Real Presence isn't? After all, all that's riding on it is actually meaning he was speaking literally when he said "this is my body", and "this is my blood". The thing is, everyone seemed to think that until after the reformation.

Week after week at my CoC, they always simply give thanks for the "emblems that represent your son", and I've been wondering, is it a correct teaching. Looking at history, the view certainly doesn't appear to come from the early church.
 

sidekick

Active Member
May 4, 2007
37
0
Xenia, Ohio
✟15,147.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I know that the CoC generally believes in Memorialism in the Lord's Supper only, but I've just been wondering why lately.

I'm interested in Catholic and Orthodox church (particularly Orthodox), and they point out the fact that Real Presence is what all of the early church fathers believed and what Christians in general believed up until post-Reformation scientific ages *ahem* Reformed theologian Huldrych Zwingli*ahem*.

One could say that all of the early church fathers were wrong, but where does history ever present an alternate belief? Where were people at the time of the ECFs who ever questioned this belief? It seemed to be THE universal Christian belief. Here are early church father quotes about RP.

In my CoC, Real Presence is taught as a "tradition of men", but I was just wondering, since the CoC claims to be the restored church, how do we justify a view that only came so late in history, and still know without a doubt if it's the correct teaching, and that Real Presence isn't? After all, all that's riding on it is actually meaning he was speaking literally when he said "this is my body", and "this is my blood". The thing is, everyone seemed to think that until after the reformation.

Week after week at my CoC, they always simply give thanks for the "emblems that represent your son", and I've been wondering, is it a correct teaching. Looking at history, the view certainly doesn't appear to come from the early church.

Here is your answer: Take the bread and fruit of the vine to a lab and test them. Are they human skin cells and blood products? Of course, not.:D Jesus, when he instituted the Lord's Supper, was whole and His body had not been crucified or broken yet. How could it be His blood or His body? It couldn't, therefore it was purely symbolic/figurative.
The early church fathers are not the authority on biblical practices. We need to trust in God's Word. Many people put trust in the Roman Catholic Church because it's roots can be traced back through history. Maybe others were afraid to speak up about certain things because of the persecution by the RCC? Who knows. Transubstantiation is just another false doctrine, along with the papacy, infant baptism, and purgatory.
The restoration movement was to get back to what was originally created and intended by God. It's too bad it was even needed.
 
Upvote 0

JDIBe

Senior Member
Oct 3, 2006
1,029
71
Midland, TX
✟9,039.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
AJ,

There is some evidence that the ECF were speaking of the "bread/wine/body/blood" metaphorically as I feel the Bible does as well. I am kind of tied up with "Hebrews" right now, but here are some New Testament passages that deal with the subject...

Matt 26:26-29
(26) And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it; and he gave to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
(27) And he took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
(28) for this is my blood of the covenant
, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins.
(29) But I say unto you, I shall not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.


If the fruit of the vine was really blood, why did Jesus call it "fruit of the vine" in verse 29?

1 Cor 11:23-29
(23) For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread;
(24) and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me.
(25) In like manner also the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
(26) For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till he come.
(27) Wherefore whosoever shall eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.
(28) But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of the bread, and drink of the cup.
(29) For he that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh judgment unto himself, if he discern not the body.


If the bread changes into the Body of Christ after prayer as the Catholics say, why does Paul still continually call it "bread"?

Also, here is a quote the Catholic or Orthodox church won't give you...

"Taking bread and distributing it to his disciples he made it his own body by saying, "This is my body," that is a "figure of my body." On the other hand, there would not have been a figure unless there was a true body." (Tertullian, Against Marcion IV. 40)

Even common sense argues against this view. There are many passages in the Gospels which are similar in their imagery...

"Ye are the salt of the earth: (Matthew 5:13)
"Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. (Matthew 5:14)
"I am the bread," (John 6:41)
"I am the vine," (John 15:5)
"I am the door," (John 10:7,9)
"I am the good shepherd,"(John 10:11,12)

Am I to believe that I am really made of salt, and just simply appear to be flesh and blood according to all known scientific tests?

If the bread is really Christ's body, what part of His body did they eat? Did He bleed? Wouldn't someone have noticed and recorded such a strange event?

AJ, I understand you are not happy with the church of Christ right now, but I beg of you....Don't jump out of the frying pan and into the fire.

If you are truly concerned about the L.S., ask your Catholic friends why they do not give the wine to Christians (just priests), only bread? Ask your Orthodox friends why they just give leavened bread soaked in juice instead of taking it separately like Jesus instituted.

It is perfectly fine to ask some tough questions, ("poke the nest" if you will) about your beliefs. But if you really are considering these churches, I think you owe it to yourself to ask these same tough questions of them as well. While many will lead you to their church documents first, (this view is honestly held, but "supported" wholly by Tradition.) consider always starting with the Scriptures, and then seeking supporting evidence. It will carry you must further down the path that leads to Heaven.

Good luck in your studies.
 
Upvote 0

Confess

Doing great with kids 8!
Jan 23, 2007
1,167
240
52
Wisconsin
✟10,133.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0

stray bullet

God Made Me A Skeptic
Nov 16, 2002
14,875
906
✟20,457.00
Marital Status
Private
Confess said:
Catholics do not teach real presence, only Lutherans teach this.

http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=6629[/quote]

Huh? :confused: Catholics believe in the Real Presence. Even your Lutheran articles states this. The difference is that Catholics believe in transubstantation, whereas Lutherans originally believed in consubstantiation.
 
Upvote 0

Confess

Doing great with kids 8!
Jan 23, 2007
1,167
240
52
Wisconsin
✟10,133.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Confess said:
Catholics do not teach real presence, only Lutherans teach this.

http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=6629[/quote]

Huh? :confused: Catholics believe in the Real Presence. Even your Lutheran articles states this. The difference is that Catholics believe in transubstantation, whereas Lutherans originally believed in consubstantiation.
Yes, that difference is a world apart. The Catholics resacrifice Jesus each time they partake in the Meal, while the Lutherans do not. So the point is that one is practicing a false understanding of the real presence.
 
Upvote 0

Confess

Doing great with kids 8!
Jan 23, 2007
1,167
240
52
Wisconsin
✟10,133.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Here is your answer: Take the bread and fruit of the vine to a lab and test them. Are they human skin cells and blood products? Of course, not.:D Jesus, when he instituted the Lord's Supper, was whole and His body had not been crucified or broken yet. How could it be His blood or His body? It couldn't, therefore it was purely symbolic/figurative.
The early church fathers are not the authority on biblical practices. We need to trust in God's Word. Many people put trust in the Roman Catholic Church because it's roots can be traced back through history. Maybe others were afraid to speak up about certain things because of the persecution by the RCC? Who knows. Transubstantiation is just another false doctrine, along with the papacy, infant baptism, and purgatory.
The restoration movement was to get back to what was originally created and intended by God. It's too bad it was even needed.
What Jesus states to be true is true.

When he said your sins are forgiven, they are. When he says that He is God, He is, when He says I am the only way, the truth and the life, then He is. When he says take and eat, this is my body ... this is my blood, then it is.
 
Upvote 0

MichaelNZ

Servus Mariae
Nov 10, 2006
990
70
38
Dunedin, New Zealand
Visit site
✟12,170.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Yes, that difference is a world apart. The Catholics resacrifice Jesus each time they partake in the Meal, while the Lutherans do not. So the point is that one is practicing a false understanding of the real presence.
The Catholics do not "resacrifice" Christ. They believe that at each Mass, the Sacrifice of Christ is made real upon the altar, when the bread and wine are transformed into Christ's Body and Blood.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

AJB4

Senior Veteran
Sep 21, 2006
2,989
92
New Zealand
✟11,180.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
I'd like to point out -- If you're talking about the RCC, they do believe in transubstantiation, but if your talking about the EOC, they don't believe in transubstantiation, but that Jesus' presence is a divine mystery. At least I think that's how you'd explain it if you were Orthodox.

JDIBe said:
AJ, I understand you are not happy with the church of Christ right now, but I beg of you....Don't jump out of the frying pan and into the fire.

Me being unhappy with the CoC is not my issue, honestly. I'm just curious.
 
Upvote 0

AJB4

Senior Veteran
Sep 21, 2006
2,989
92
New Zealand
✟11,180.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
JDIBe said:
"Taking bread and distributing it to his disciples he made it his own body by saying, "This is my body," that is a "figure of my body." On the other hand, there would not have been a figure unless there was a true body." (Tertullian, Against Marcion IV. 40)

Here's the passage with a bit more context (Courtesy of Ioan cel Nou:

"When He so earnestly expressed His desire to eat the passover, He considered it His own feast; for it would have been unworthy of God to desire to partake of what was not His own. Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, "This is my body,"1600 that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body.1601 An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure. If, however, (as Marcion might say, ) He pretended the bread was His body, because He lacked the truth of bodily substance, it follows that He must have given bread for us. It would contribute very well to the support of Marcion's theory of a phantom body,1602 that bread should have been crucified! But why call His body bread, and not rather (some other edible thing, say) a melon,1603 which Marcion must have had in lieu of a heart! He did not understand how ancient was this figure of the body of Christ, who said Himself by Jeremiah: "I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter, and I knew not that1604 they devised a device against me, saying, Let us cast the tree upon His bread,"1605 which means, of course, the cross upon His body. [4] And thus, casting light, as He always did, upon the ancient prophecies,1606 He declared plainly enough what He meant by the bread, when He called the bread His own body. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new testament to be sealed "in His blood,"1607 affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body which is not a body of flesh. If any sort of body were presented to our view, which is not one of flesh, not being fleshly, it would not possess blood. [5] Thus, from the evidence of the flesh, we get a proof of the body, and a proof of the flesh from the evidence of the blood. In order, however, that you may discover how anciently wine is used as a figure for blood, turn to Isaiah, who asks, "Who is this that cometh from Edom, from Bosor with garments dyed in red, so glorious in His apparel, in the greatness of his might? Why are thy garments red, and thy raiment as his who cometh from the treading of the full winepress? "1608 [6] The prophetic Spirit contemplates the Lord as if He were already on His way to His passion, clad in His fleshly nature; and as He was to suffer therein, He represents the bleeding condition of His flesh under the metaphor of garments dyed in red, as if reddened in the treading and crushing process of the wine-press, from which the labourers descend reddened with the wine-juice, like men stained in blood. Much more clearly still does the book of Genesis foretell this, when (in the blessing of Judah, out of whose tribe Christ was to come according to the flesh) it even then delineated Christ in the person of that patriarch,1609 saying, "He washed His garments in wine, and His clothes in the blood of grapes"1610 ----in His garments and clothes the prophecy pointed out his flesh, and His blood in the wine. Thus did He now consecrate His blood in wine, who then (by the patriarch) used the figure of wine to describe His blood."
 
Upvote 0

stray bullet

God Made Me A Skeptic
Nov 16, 2002
14,875
906
✟20,457.00
Marital Status
Private
Yes, that difference is a world apart. The Catholics resacrifice Jesus each time they partake in the Meal, while the Lutherans do not. So the point is that one is practicing a false understanding of the real presence.

I'm sorry, but that is not what Catholics believe at all.The Catholic Church does not teach, nor has ever taught that the Mass is a resacrifice.
 
Upvote 0

stray bullet

God Made Me A Skeptic
Nov 16, 2002
14,875
906
✟20,457.00
Marital Status
Private
Oh now Stray..........

.....You're not getting all Gnostic on me, are you? :)

If you tested Christ's body in a lab, would you find His divinity? Even those that lived on Earth could not distinquish Him from an ordinary man.

Just as when God came to us a a man, He appeared as a man, so does He appear at communion as food and drink.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Splayd

Just some guy
Apr 19, 2006
2,547
1,033
52
✟8,071.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hey AJ :wave:

Even if Tertullian came right out and said "The bread actually becomes the flesh of Christ" it wouldn't mean he was right. His words aren't inspired scripture. I actually have a lot of respect for the early church writings, but we need to remember that they're still just the writings of fallible men.

At any rate, I don't think Tertullian is actually saying what you think he is. As I read through the writings of the early church, I recognise a development in some ideas. The Orthodox and Catholics don't. They consider that the beliefs they have now are the same beliefs that were always held. As such, they read their current beliefs into the earlier writings. As they don't agree with each other (EO/CC), it's clear that at least one of them veered from the course at some point.

Personally, I always consider scripture to be first and foremost. If scripture and tradition happen to disagree at any point, it must be the tradition that's wrong. I also happen to believe that secondary sources aid our understanding. Tradition is one of those things that can help us, as are studies in Hebrew and Greek, as well as an understanding and appreciation of the religious, cultural, historical context within which the scriptures were written.

Let's consider the context of Jesus' words first.
Jesus and the disciples were sharing a Passover meal. Now, anyone who's familiar with the Jewish Passover will recognise that pretty much everything about the meal has significance. They have bitter herbs to remind them that they were slaves. Each of the cups of wine has a special significance too. They even remove a drop of wine for every plague with one of the cups. All the way through the meal, the significance is revealed. Now the Jewish observance is perhaps more significant than a simple memorial... BUT they never actually believed that the emblems were transformed into the things they represented.

Let's consider an important aspect of the meal that's still practiced by Jews to this day. The bread is made specially. It's made without leaven (as leaven represents sin). It's also striped and pierced. I'm sure the Jews don't understand this part... BUT there are 3 pieces of bread which are placed in one special container. it's sort of like a pillow case with 3 layers. One piece of bread is placed in each layer. The middle layer is then removed, broken and wrapped in linen. Its then buried (hidden under a cushion or something like that). Towards the end of the meal, the hidden bread is retrieved and bought back by the head of the table, who breaks it up and distributes it among everyone.

Now - stop and think for a moment. It should be clear. The three-tiered bread thingy represents the Godhead. The middle layer that was removed represents Jesus. He too was free of sin, pierced and striped. He too was broken, wrapped in linen, buried and resurrected for all. Of course the Jews still don't see this, so how were the disciples supposed to understand when it hadn't even come to pass yet. Just as Jesus had been explaining the significance of the feast throughout the whole night, He was now to explain the significance of this obscure practice - a practice which had never been explained. What's more, they were just about to partake in the 4th (I think?) cup of wine for the night. Each cup represented something. This cup was called...."Yeshua". That is "Salvation" AND was also Jesus' actual name (in their native tongue). See how beautifully it all fits together. Just as the bread is returned to the head of the table, He explains "This bread is my body, which is given for you." What an incredible image it is, as He breaks it and distibutes it amongst them. "This cup (Yeshua) is the new covenant in my blood, even that which is poured out for you." What an incredible fullness of meaning it is that came to the Passover that night. Jesus also explains "Do this, in remembrance of me."

OK - that's the setting that communion was first given to us. It was delivered as exposition/explanation of the symbols at a time and during a ceremony that was full of symbols and explainations. Also consider this: Jesus and the disciples were all observant Jews. We believe that Jesus followed the law perfectly. Consuming blood was strictly fobidden under Jewish law. It was even a law the apostles encouraged the gentiles to follow so they could fellowship with the Jews. If He had actually given them blood to drink, He would have been breaking the law and given the seriousness of that law for Jews - there's no way it would've been practiced by those early Jewish Christians.

Now to consider Tertullian's writings. It must be recognised that Tertullian writing is a response to Marcion's teachings. It would be wise to consider what it was that he was addressing here. Marcion flourished very very early in the church. He was born in 110 AD, so his writings/teachings would be amongst the earliest notable teachings in the church. Obviously they preceded Tertullian's... BUT that doesn't mean they were right. On the contrary, his teachings were clearly wrong. He taught some really wacky stuff, including some heresies that have crept into our forums lately. he taught against the acceptance of the OT for example and that there were 2 gods. He also compiled his own scriptures to get rid of anything that disagreed with his doctrine and even considered the apostles to have betrayed the truth. He was certainly a fruitloop and an influential one at that.

The particular Marcion teaching that Tertullian is addressing in this writing is that Jesus was NOT God incarnate. Rather, He was God manifest. He said that Christ suddenly appeared as an adult, in the appearance of flesh only. Essentially, he was saying that Jesus didn't really have a body, but merely appeared to have a body. Tertullian refutes this by acknowledging Jesus' words at the Passover. He isn't necessarily saying that the bread is actually, physically, really the body of Christ. In fact, he's almost denying as much. He's actually saying "Why would Jesus say it was His body... IF He didn't even have a body to begin with?" The argument that you've highlighted is about Jesus' statement that His body is given for us. If He didn't have a body, then it can't have been given for us, so the symbol is not actually a symbol for a body at all, but rather the body itself. ie: If Jesus didn't have a body, then He only gave His bread for us and not His body. It's not an argument about the "real presence" at communion at all, but rather an argument that Jesus had a physical body. I hope that made sense.

Peace
 
  • Like
Reactions: joyfulthanks
Upvote 0

stray bullet

God Made Me A Skeptic
Nov 16, 2002
14,875
906
✟20,457.00
Marital Status
Private
Hey AJ :wave:

Even if Tertullian came right out and said.......

If you had a video recording of the apostles all talking about how the Eucharist is the Real Presence people here would argue it doesn't matter because it isn't in the bible.

People love to ignore everything outside of the bible because it allows them to boundlessly spin their own theology and doctrines.
 
Upvote 0

JDIBe

Senior Member
Oct 3, 2006
1,029
71
Midland, TX
✟9,039.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
If you had a video recording of the apostles all talking about how the Eucharist is the Real Presence people here would argue it doesn't matter because it isn't in the bible.

People love to ignore everything outside of the bible because it allows them to boundlessly spin their own theology and doctrines.
Bring me the video and we'll talk.... :)

On the contrary, the Word of God is the Word of God. One may try to interpret it differently, but the inescapable fact is, it is there. Unchanged for all eternity.

Appealing to things outside the Bible AND THEN trying to reconcile it with the Scriptures allows for many more doctrines. In fact, it can allow for doctrines that don't agree with the Bible at all. The Scriptural evidence strongly suggests this doctrine is not true, IMO.

What concerns me most about your interpretation (and others here) is that it is a very small step from saying (with no compelling Scriptural evidence) "Well, it APPEARS to be bread and wine to ordinary senses, but really it's flesh and blood" and "Well, Jesus APPEARED to be flesh and blood, but really He wasn't."

Both views claim that "things are not as they appear."....
 
Upvote 0

JDIBe

Senior Member
Oct 3, 2006
1,029
71
Midland, TX
✟9,039.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Hey AJ :wave:

OK - that's the setting that communion was first given to us. It was delivered as exposition/explanation of the symbols at a time and during a ceremony that was full of symbols and explainations. Also consider this: Jesus and the disciples were all observant Jews. We believe that Jesus followed the law perfectly. Consuming blood was strictly fobidden under Jewish law. It was even a law the apostles encouraged the gentiles to follow so they could fellowship with the Jews. If He had actually given them blood to drink, He would have been breaking the law and given the seriousness of that law for Jews - there's no way it would've been practiced by those early Jewish Christians.
Peace

AJ,

I think Splayd is pretty much on target here with what he has said. I found the bolded statement above interesting.

Here's something worth considering....

If the wine was really blood, and understood by Peter to be really blood, how does this passage make sense?

Acts 10:10-14
(10) And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,
(11) And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:
(12) Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
(13) And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
(14) But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.


Again, why does Jesus call the cup "fruit of the vine" after it is blessed in Matt. 26:29? Why does Paul call it "bread" in I Cor. 11:23-29? The evidence is there in the Bible. All you have to do is look for it.

Splayd's explanation seems to be correct to me. Early Christians spoke of the LS with literal language because they were battling Gnosicism. A certain amount of the "realistic" language in the early church is simply quotation of the New Testament language, with no reflection on its meaning. When they spoke more precisely, however, they spoke of it's symbolic nature...

"Now it is evident, that in this prophecy [Isa 33:13-19] to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat, in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, in remembrance of His own blood, with giving of thanks." (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, ch 70) (~150 AD)

""Observe" he (Cyprian) says, in presenting the cup, to maintain the custom handed down to us from the Lord, and to do nothing that our Lord has not first done for us: so that the cup which is offered in remembrance of Him should be mixed with wine. For, as Christ says, 'I am the true vine,' it follows that the blood of Christ is wine, not water; and the cup cannot appear to contain His blood by which we are redeemed and quickened, if the wine be absent; for by the wine is the blood of Christ typified, that blood which is foreshadowed and proclaimed in all the types and declarations of Scripture." (Augustine (~400 AD), On Christian Doctrine, book 4, ch 21, quoting Cyprian, (~200 AD)

But none of this really matters anyway. (Except in a secondary way) What matters is what the Scriptures say! Ask yourself honestly and inwardly (and you do not owe me an answer...)

"If Matt. 26:29 or I Cor.11:23-29 were given to me as quotes from the Early Church Fathers rather than from Jesus and Paul, would it bother me more or less?"

If you say "more" or "the same", I think you might have some soul searching to do. Many people will come to you with documents. They have to. They cannot justify teachings such as this on the Bible alone. Consider the Scriptures first.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Splayd

Just some guy
Apr 19, 2006
2,547
1,033
52
✟8,071.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
People love to ignore everything outside of the bible because it allows them to boundlessly spin their own theology and doctrines.
:D So your assessment of my post is that "people love to ignore everything outside of the bible"??? I'd argue that my assessment considered scripture, context, Christian tradition, Jewish tradition and reason. That hardly seems to be "ignoring everything outside of the bible". I'd offer the counter argument that some people choose to disregard everything outside of "their tradition", including scripture, context and reason. Hmmmm...
 
Upvote 0