The Eucharist is the final redpill

The Eucharist is the final redpill.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/fIrZZHC27QQ
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

I'm all for Jesus. But I don't know this word Eucharist. What is it and why is it Red Pill?

John 6:52-59
52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" 53 So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.

A Catholic heresy that predicates salvation on a work

So you are calling St. James a heretic?

The Eucharist is not a "work" it is a gift.

wait, is Jesus telling Jews that they must eat the flesh and blood of children? because Jews are pretty successful maybe there's something to this, it might be worth trying, if you catch my drift nudge nudge etc

>final redpill.
Isn't that just something a sun cult makes their 12 year olds do to normalize cannibalism?

It is my body which will be given to you. Do this in memory of me.

Ok. Serious question.

* The thief on the cross next to Jesus
* The tree midget
* The woman at the well
* The 5000 people that Jesus fed with fish and loaves

Pretty sure they never had the Eucharist. They weren't "religious" at all. So will they still be in Heaven?

If you accept Jesus in your heart as your Lord and saviour and repent for your sins you will make it to heaven.

If they accepted Jesus after he was raised up, yes.

No.

Another serious question...

What do you say to the rabid, close-minded atheists who say there is no God or that Jesus was a myth?

I know 1000% that God is real.
And I know 1000% that Jesus is the Son of God (fully God and fully man).

But no matter how many verifiable PROOFS that I provide, they clearly don't WANT to believe – and would rather just spew blasphemies.

BTW... I have many, but this is one of my favorite proof videos:
youtu.be/fIrZZHC27QQ

Some people could stare God in his eyes and still wouldn't believe.

Perhaps God himself should come down, rather than letting his followers rape and pillage people which causes everyone else to be sick of them before they even start talking. Fucking boring, Jesus Christ, go burn a "witch" for having enough spirit to feel the warm Earth.

If their works are in accordance with Jesus' teachings and they accept the creator, then they don't even have to know Jesus and they'll get in.

Do yourself a favor and read a non-apologist account of the historical reliability of the gospels and the nature of the early (2nd-3rd century) church.

Christianity is unfortunately a meme, friends.

>I know 1000% that God is real.
>And I know 1000% that Jesus is the Son of God (fully God and fully man).

I don't understand how a religious person, committed in believing in the unseen, can claim to KNOW that these things are real, when religion is an act of faith, a commitment to act AS IF they were real, but in full consciousness that they may not be.

Maybe it's just my personal conception of faith which prevent me from placing religious statements within the scope of more ordinary affirmative statements like "this is a chair". There's no proof in the religious domain, but only the uncertainty of our existence, and the choices we make without guidance.

*Tips fedora

In a murder case we determine guilt or innocence based on evidence – "beyond a reasonable doubt."

What is a "reasonable doubt?"

I look at the incredible GENIUS necessary to create DNA. It is the most elaborate, poetic, self-correcting "code" in the universe. Virtually every software program made by man uses binary code (1s and 0s). DNA uses a quadratic code (A, C, T, G) – which is exponentially more elaborate than binary.

ANYONE who says that DNA just "happened" naturally through evolution... well, they just don't get it. They're not being reasonable.

After humanity harnessed electricity, it took us nearly a century to develop and master binary code. And yet the faithless evolutionists tell you that DNA just "happened" accidentally.

That is totally NOT reasonable logic. And I would take it a step further to say that believing in "accidental" DNA requires much more faith than believing in a Divine Creator.

Test... take 100 keys and 100 matching padlocks. Put them in a bucket and start shaking the bucket. Is it reasonable to think that all 100 keys will ever --- ever --- ever insert themselves into the 100 padlocks --- even after 10 Billion years of gyrating? No. That's not reasonable at all. And any logical, honest mind will see that.

Not an athiest. Not even an agnostic. I'm just convinced that Israel's Elohim and the Nazerene do not hold the final say on what god is.

They wrote books, but they did not write them in a vacuum. And appealing to it being the inerrent inspired word of god does not help its credibility. They were political creatures.

The OT didn't even get synthesized and officialized until like the 5th century BC, after or during their exile. It was a mish-mash quilt weaving of their faith in a desperate attempt to save it.

As far as Christianity goes, there were tons of jewish messianic figures recorded from that particular time period. It was a turbulent time, and gnostic-inspired writers like Paul riffed on the theme of the day. Notice how the miracles get more numerous and outlandish the further out from Paul you get. And once the meme solidified, there was no going back.

Like I said, still spiritual but people need to read critical views of christian origins for balance and fairness if nothing else.

I assume you kids know christ is fake, right?

> Im a deist
The bible was created, written by, and written for jews. You say the Eucharist is the final redpill; I say having the realization that the jews created Christianity to control goyim, is the final redpill.

Literally the most ridiculous thing I've ever read.

>created by jews to control goyim
>christians drive jews out of everythinging
>?????????????????

Pretty much this.

I like a lot of stuff about Christianity but I could never get past the fact that it all takes place in the middle east. Everyone has a jewish name and it just feels foreign.

Reading folk legends or even books about the ancient history of Europe read so much easier than the bible does.

Wrong again. Try doing actual study, and stop relying on all the fedora geniuses online.

youtu.be/fIrZZHC27QQ

Is it possible that Jesus was actually Hulk Hogan?

We could rule it out, but let's not

>actual study
>OP's image is one of the oldest proven fake relics of jayzus in Christian mythology

>fedora geniuses online.
posts a youtube video for fedora geniuses, from a channel named "The Vigilant Christian" (fedora genius tier nick name)

k m8

No.

See pic related
>inb4 "not my pope, not real christian..etc,etc"

So your faith is based on which books are the easiest to read? Do I have that right?

The Scriptures are available in every possible format (audio, video, Children's Bibles, online, etc). But even if you get an old-fashioned King James Bible -- if you start by focusing on just the words of Jesus, it's really quite simple to understand.

That post was dripping with sarcasm.

>I look at the incredible GENIUS necessary to create DNA

The only you may deduce from the existence of DNA is the existence of DNA. There is no necessary connection between the existence of DNA and that of a being beyond this universe. Certainly, there is no necessary connection between the existence of DNA and the truth of the divine story as told in the Bible, so that you may posit the existence of something outside the universe if you wish but you will know nothing of the form of it.

I don't like the claim of logical certainty. They strike me as lacking in humility, on top of conflating different types of discourse. Faith is not probability, it is not certainty, and religious experience is not comparable to knowledge of this world.

Your statement is completely False. They have re-examined the Shroud with better technology and have debunked virtually every early finding.

You really should check your facts before making such demonstrably false claims.

You completely missed the point of my post. I'm not saying they're hard to read because of big words. I'm saying the scriptures are hard to read because it's all about foreigners in the desert and jews.

Something like The Saga of the Volsungs is much more easy to read and doesn't feel like a chore like reading the bible does.

It scares me that I share this board weith you delusional fucks.
Grow up. I have no problem with believing in a god but the desert trilogy is made up bullshit.

>better technology

What is this "better technology" that disproves carbon dating? If it's demonstrably false, as you say, I'm looking forward to seeing the published paper that states the shroud is over 1980 years old.

Wow. what a brilliant take down. The video was made by a former atheist named Chris White. Reposted by VC. Clearly you didn't watch it.

Proof of Jesus is everywhere if you'll just open your mind (and heart) to see it. But I know you won't because "m'uh logic, m'uh logic."

That video (and the books cited within) are irrefutable.

>The Eucharist is not a "work" it is a gift.

Even more so, it is a Sacrament - An outwardly physical act, whose primary significance is inward and spiritual. Even His disciples had difficulty with this.
That's why He -Commanded them- "Do this as a testament unto Me". (or more commonly translated as "do this in memory of me")

Pope = an Antichrist.

>saints.

blasphemy

>* The thief on the cross next to Jesus
>* The tree midget
>* The woman at the well
>* The 5000 people that Jesus fed with fish and loaves
>Pretty sure they never had the Eucharist. They weren't "religious" at all. So will they still be in Heaven?


The feeding of the five thousand was a prefigurement of the Eucharist, and yes, those who received it in good faith will be raised up.
The woman at the well, and the thief on the other cross, were "granted" entrance to heaven by a Word of His Mouth because of their acts in faith, and their testimony that Christ is Lord.

How much do you want to bet that Giulio Fanti, the University of Padua professor of mechanical and thermal measurement who did the more recent dating on the shroud, is Catholic?

Put another way-- how much stake would you say the Vatican has in proving the shroud to be authentic?

Okay, this has to be bait, anyone except absolute retarded Southerners know what St. Peter's cross is.

>If you accept Jesus in your heart as your Lord and saviour and repent for your sins you will make it to heaven.


Almost. You must *believe* and you must *confess* your sins and *repent* of them.
Contrition must have both the inward form and the outward form of reconciliation. Else how can you know which of your sins are forgiven and which are not?

>dodges argument that a reliable scientific method for relatively recent objects proves shroud to be impossibly new to have been wrapped around anyone in Jesus' century, much less his lifetime

>appeals to conspiracy

There's nothing to argue if your fallback point is "The people measuring the data are biased", why bother posting?

I didn't miss the point of your post at all. That's why I added:

>But even if you get an old-fashioned King James Bible -- if you start by focusing on just the words of Jesus, it's really quite simple to understand.

> the words of Jesus
> the words of Jesus
> the words of Jesus
> the words of Jesus

You're free to get your Spiritual guidance from whatever you want. Volsungs or My Little Pony or whatever. I particularly like the stories of Sherlock Holmes.

But there's a difference between Sherlock Holmes and Jesus! A big, big difference. God loves you and He will reveal Himself to you if you let Him. He will give you peace and rest if you let Him.

>What do you say to the rabid, close-minded atheists who say there is no God or that Jesus was a myth?
>I know 1000% that God is real.
>And I know 1000% that Jesus is the Son of God (fully God and fully man).

Your testimony is your obligation, but the outcome is not yours to control. Because the work is His, and He will do His works upon whom he is pleased to.

See thats another thing I don't like about Christianity. I never demeaned your religion then you go and call our heritage, the culture and heroes and legends of our forefathers, and you compare them with MLP and sherlock holmes.

>mention how I don't like how the bible seems foreign and distant from me
>christian shits on Euorpean history and culture

wew fucking lad.

Wow. All of those inflated words to say exactly nothing.

Explain how DNA exists without the presence of a GENIUS who invented it. I want you to give me a REASONABLE explanation of how it came to be if it wasn't intelligently designed.

>rather than letting his followers rape and pillage people which causes everyone else to be sick of them before they even start talking


To abide without belief is one thing, but hatred of faith itself is another. You suffer from the latter difficulty, and until your will is broken of it's pride, you will remain unable to see the truth.

I don't think it's as weak an argument as you think. Today's science is largely politics. And how many other scientific teams do you think will be allowed to slice off a chunk of the shroud in order to do their own independent verification?

>I read the words of Jesus in English after four translations
>words of jesus
>words of 2000 years of mainstream translation at absolute best
>the gospels contradict each other in multiple locations, can't even agree who 'found' the 'empty' tomb

I was once tripping on 10grams of shrooms and swear i met jesus. everytime i closed my eyes i saw a face like in the OP. i wanted to try and talk to him but my faggot friends kept distracting me

>If their works are in accordance with Jesus' teachings and they accept the creator, then they don't even have to know Jesus and they'll get in.

I wouldn't count on that. No man cometh unto the Father, except through the Son.

Christians didnt drive jews out; many of the first christians were allied with jews. Nobles that borrowed too much money from jew bankers did, and then they would invite them back after exiling them.

/thread
I'll never understand why billions of people get autistic about rituals. Jesus was anti-ritualistic. Christianity opposes the idea you need to perform magic actions and eat magic shit. That's for those suckers called the Jews

Okay, I think it's a complete dogshit arguement. Here's why.

How many people do you think work in a university lab, on a single project, at once? It isn't one person. It is many. The "leading researcher" does not do the legwork.

You have obviously never been in an academic setting past high school, or you went to a place that doesn't do research in your major (Why even bother going then?)

Would you agree that IF, IF, IF Jesus rose from the dead then He must have been the Son of God as He claimed?

I still want to see the study that makes carbon dating "demonstrably false", but I have this really weird feeling it's as fake as Jesus

This is some pretty terrible b8, m8

One time during an acid trip in my parents' basement (where else?) and I saw the side of the gas furnace change into the face of Jesus. Looking sad and wise - wise because he's Jesus and sad - well, he's been through a lot.

Thinking you need to eat bread and wine to go to heaven

Any Christian group that denies the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist is to be avoided.

>And how many other scientific teams do you think will be allowed to slice off a chunk of the shroud in order to do their own independent verification?
>And how many other scientific teams do you think will be allowed to slice off a chunk of the shroud in order to do their own independent verification?
>And how many other scientific teams do you think will be allowed to slice off a chunk of the shroud in order to do their own independent verification?
>And how many other scientific teams do you think will be allowed to slice off a chunk of the shroud in order to do their own independent verification?


AND WHO DO YOU THINK IS STOPPING THEM FROM GETTING ANOTHER SAMPLE? IT CERTAINLY ISN'T THE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO DISPROVE THE SHROUD, IT'S THE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO KEEP PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY.


What goes through your fucking head, that you think the people who want to disprove something would keep it under wraps?

>ANYONE who says that DNA just "happened" naturally through evolution... well, they just don't get it. They're not being reasonable.
>After humanity harnessed electricity, it took us nearly a century to develop and master binary code. And yet the faithless evolutionists tell you that DNA just "happened" accidentally.
>That is totally NOT reasonable logic. And I would take it a step further to say that believing in "accidental" DNA requires much more faith than believing in a Divine Creator.
>Test... take 100 keys and 100 matching padlocks. Put them in a bucket and start shaking the bucket. Is it reasonable to think that all 100 keys will ever --- ever --- ever insert themselves into the 100 padlocks --- even after 10 Billion years of gyrating? No. That's not reasonable at all. And any logical, honest mind will see that.

THIS. The "Happy Accident" of life arising from non-life and then "evolving" into humanity - that takes Waaaayyyyyyy more faith than what a sane, rational belief in Christ requires.

God is orderly; and He created an orderly universe. Look at the beautiful patterns throughout the world - in crystal of various minerals, the symmetrical patterns in plant leaves, the cycles of the tides and the seasons. All of this stately order arose by "accident"?? Nope, It's way easier to look around and see God's providential creation, than it is to see chaos. Chaos lost the battle the moment Galileo started figuring out the orbits of the planets and the stars... and proved that they were a grand ballet in the sky.

Your "genius" could be aliens. You see the problem when we just make up reasons for things existing on the fly?

So is Eucharist REQUIRED to be saved?

This is my struggle with Orthodoxy. I don't know what's required and what's not.

Is BELIEF/LOVE of Jesus enough for Salvation or not?

Teams come up with biased conclusions all the time when wealthy/influential groups have a stake in the outcomes of the research.

You telling me that all those old studies on the health benefits of smoking were valid because they were done by a team?

The Vatican as a political entity HAS been known to be slightly conspiratorial from time to time in its long history. And they DO have more money than god.

>Dailey reminder that this part was before the lords supper

Can the eucharist be about pantheism? That to eat jesus' blood and flesh in wine and the host is to accept that everything is God, God is everything and the trinity describes our place in the universe?

A sponsored private think tank instead of a public university, yes, they are slightly different teams.

Also, And still waiting on the sick study that someone has to prove carbon dating "demonstrably false", and not "no u" arguments of "the researchers literally work for the antichrist pope"

I can merely say that we do not know, which is true, and leave it at that, in exactly the same way we didn't know how to explain thunder, earthquake, the movement of the planets, the tide, the growth of plants, the transmission of diseases, the atomic structure of matter, etc.

You're not gonna be able to deduce the truth of Christianity from the structure of DNA, and ignorance of how things happened won't save you. I may just as easily deduce the truth of Judaism or Islam from it, or of mere deism. You cheapen Christianity by trying to make it a proof of logic. It betrays a feeling of insecurity in the face of science, and an implicit belief that the only valid form of discourse is one that mimics the scientific one.

If Christianity is true, it's not true in the same way the theories of science may be true, and therefore its mode of justification will have to differ. An intuition about the fallen nature of man, the origin of suffering, will be more potent and give a truer picture of the Christian experience than would a thought experiment about probabilities.

If you say: there is suffering, and true solace and repose is only to be found in something eternal, unmoving, all encompassing, in a being of infinite love, then I believe one would have been closer to a correct description of piety than by talking about the unlikelihood of biological entities.

The shroud belongs to the fucking church, moron. It's their property.

Yes, I'm sure desert dwelling jews who cut off the tips of babies dicks thought exactly that when they wrote the bible.

And they are literally the gatekeepers of handing out samples so that independent teams can verify, as you just cried about. I'm the moron? Does it take less than 10 minutes for you to forget what you just typed?

I don't think those desert dwelling jews really appreciated jesus. Doesn't the talmud say he's boiling in semen in hell?

>I have no problem with believing in a god but the desert trilogy is made up bullshit.

What? You don't like Dune? Frank Herbert's style a bit heavy for you? Too much even for your highly evolved trilobite brain?

You're not the only one who can be sarcastic.
Now, get down to the question and tell us what you ARE WILLING TO BELIEVE.

Answering in the negative is, well, not answering, and thus not acceptable

If it were ONLY St. Peter's Cross, then I wouldn't have a problem. But the Catholics use HUNDREDS of pagan and occult symbols. And MANY of their rituals are occultic in nature. I used that image as an example only.

* Ashterah Poles
* Dagon hats
* Twisted Cross staff
* Phallus symbols
* Sun symbols
* Mary = Semiramus
* "Saints"

.....and on and on and on.

* The Inquisition was Catholic, not Christian.
* Torturing heretics was Catholic, not Christian.
* Selling indulgences was Catholic, not Christian.
* Celebacy was Catholic, not Christian.

.......and on and on and on.

I think we're onto something here

Fuck if I know. I don't read the Talmud. The jews don't make fun of Jesus because they hate him. They make fun of the goyim for following their religion and abandoning their cultures. They're laughing at you for having subjugated you.

>God is orderly; and He created an orderly universe

You're just assuming what needs to be demonstrated. We know the universe to be orderly in some way. That is all we know.

I literally think that people who try to "prove" God this way have no faith, or weak faith.

Agreed with you up to this part...

> inward form and the outward form of reconciliation. Else how can you know which of your sins are forgiven and which are not?

Can you expand on that? I've never heard this stated this way.

They pretty clearly hate Christians, though.

What puts your 'faith' above others, if it requires no physical proof, besides the fact that you grew up with it?

in before jesus told me after my pastor punched me in the back of the head to drive out demons

They hate all goyim. Whether Christian or pagan Rome.

Eucharist is not required for salvation, but it is an extremely important part of Christ's Church, the center of it. It would be unreasonable for it to be a requirement for salvation because many people might not have access to it or even know about it.

It's good to keep in mind though there's a difference between being ignorant of teachings and choosing to ignore teachings.

Belief in and love of Jesus are not enough until they manifest in your life. Love requires sacrifice. Belief requires taking things seriously.

A mushy feeling-based idea of belief/love is a deception, and that's why many people prefer it. It's an easy way out, no commitment, no sacrifice, no real requirements, completely self-centered and self-serving "love" and "belief".

>>mention how I don't like how the bible seems foreign and distant from me
>>christian shits on Euorpean history and culture

I think he fails to understand. Christ came into the world to Reconcile the Nations unto Himself. And he sent His disciples out to the Nations... note, I do not say "countries"; as Christ spake, I also say "Nations". The Teutons, the Celts, the Norse, the Francs and the Goths - all Nations of men. And all answered Christs call, and brought what they had unto Him. What was incorrect in their knowledge and culture, He worked with them to overcome, but that which was Good He granted them to keep, for they were never, ever meant to give up their dignified condition as Nations of men. On the contrary, Christ came to elevate their Nations, certainly not to destroy them.

It is the evil one who seeks to destroy Nations and replace them with "countries".

You would have to study those faiths and determine which you believed better correspond to human nature as you see it. Religion aren't predictive systems (save for vague prophecies and promises to be fulfilled after death) and so can't be evaluated in the same way scientific theories are.

That's a problem for religion and, for man, is a disqualifying characteristic, for very understandable reasons.

>And how many other scientific teams do you think will be allowed to slice off a chunk of the shroud in order to do their own independent verification?

Several have already been done. What's your POINT???

Christianity is superstitious nonsense. And the vatican's own investigation team thinks that the thing in your pic was made in the middle ages.

>What was incorrect in their knowledge and culture
Such as?

>but that which was Good He granted them to keep
Oh gee that was pretty nice of yahweh to do

Also as an Orthodox, you might want to read Orthodox spiritual masters. Get yourself a copy of Philokalia.

>for man

for many*

This reads like a sovereign citizen trying to redefine words in a context he knows nothing about.

You're actually making semantics arguments based on a translation, of a translation, of a translation, of a translation. Can you read Latin, Greek, or Hebrew? Even your grasp of English is weak.

> I never demeaned your religion
Comparing the Catholic Pope to Christianity is demeaning. But I honestly wouldn't expect most people to understand that.

Having said that, my comment was NOT meant to be demeaning. It wasn't a comparison. It was a Sup Forums inspired list of examples. One example which I identified with personally.

All I will say is that fables and legends (of any kind) are NOT the same as Jesus. Like it or not, Jesus was a real man who performed real miracles, and He claimed to be the one, true God. He further claimed that His own death and resurrection could save all men from their sins.

We can prove that Jesus really did live. He really was crucified. And he really was resurrected 3 days later. And like it or not, we can demonstrate that all of these claims are true beyond a "reasonable doubt."

youtu.be/fIrZZHC27QQ