Trying to defend religious or born again

I am writing the truth as far as I know it in response to a FB friend posting this

Are you religious or born again

I explain why I am both, but have got the point where one person is arguing Jesus doesn’t like religion, that only Sadducees followed religion I am part way explaining that he and his holy family were devout Jews and gave examples of where he observed feasts was presented in the temple as a child, was left in the temple speaking to the elders as a child and called it his home etc. that Jesus disliked that they didn’t practice what they preached but liked the religion.

Now I would just like to check I am right in saying that priests performed liturgy in the temple who were holy seeing that the first priests were from the tribe of Levi.

Thanks

Levitical priests were probably like Catholic priests - you have devout priests and priests who should really be in some other line of work.

But, unlike Catholic priests, Levitical priests had no choice. If you were a male you were a priest. You had a duty because of your birth.

FWIW, this is why (as we heard in last Sunday’s reading) Jesus is a priest “of the order of Melchizedek.” We don’t know much about Melchizedek, but we know he was not a Levite (Levi had not yet been born).

Off topic a little from your question but I would recommend asking your friend to define what he means by “religious”. Then go from there. If you do not both have the same definition of the word…you may spend a lot of time talking past each other.

I have also found that just about any definition that someone gives…it’s easy to show how Jesus requires the things included in the definition of His followers.:slight_smile:

:thumbsup:

Didn’t know that Melchizedek was not a Levite. Informative post. Thx.

Mary.

Thanks v much, sometimes these kind of questions are useful as we have to delve deeper into the faith, and I learnt a few things above.

That’s a fairly typical non-denom sort of assertion, but you can simply respond with, "If religion is so bad then why does James say the following?
***(Ch 1:26-27) [26] If any one thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this man’s religion is vain. [27] Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.

[FONT=Georgia]You might also point out the works basis that St. James mandates for true religion. That may get them thinking…
***[/FONT]
You are quite correct to say that you (and all faithful Catholics) are both.

I don’t think that I’d use your argument as stated just because not all the priests were holy. See 1st Samuel 12 for a good example.

You can ask him to define religion and ask for scripture to support his position, but I can guarantee that you will have already cited the best one and it will make him look unscriptural (which his position really is). Other New Testament references to religion can be found here.

Here’s a great article explaining Melchizedek: newadvent.org/cathen/10156b.htm

Most non-Catholics believe that the Catholic Church is the epitome of “religion” and in effort to justify their separation from it claim that they have the “relationship” and that Jesus condemned “religion.”

What Jesus actually condemned was “religion without the relationship.” You can’t simply have religion like the Pharisees without the heart conversion and be okay and vice versa, you cannot simply claim to have a heart conversion and not do what Jesus tells you to do. That’s not a true heart conversion.

In Matthew 23, you find the “Woe to you” soliloquy of Jesus to the Pharisees, which is the passage that Protestants will use to prove that Jesus hated “religion” but, in verse 23, Jesus makes it very clear when He says:

*“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. **You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.”
**
*
So, IOW, you should’ve been “religious” but you shouldn’t have neglected justice, mercy, and faithfulness.

“Born again”, happens at baptism.

The person who says Jesus doesn’t like religion doesn’t know Jesus. He has a Jesus of his own making.

As for Sadducees, they didn’t believe in the resurrection of the dead. That’s why they were Sad-you-see. :frowning:

And you did well. :thumbsup:

Those OT priests performed sacrifices for sin at the altar day in and day out, and in reality couldn’t forgive the sins they gave sacrifice for. Unlike the NT priests who can offer true sacrifice and forgive sins. The OT priests were only types and shadows pointing to the NT fulfillment of the NT priesthood.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.