Posted on 02/09/2015 12:47:13 PM PST by RnMomof7
Well done! In addition to that. If you study the prophecy of Daniel concerning the 490 years allotted the nation of Israel you will see that the timing of Christ was exactly as it was prophesied.
Yes it is. And I completely, perfectly, and enduringly emptied that 100 bu wagon load of corn into the 1000bu storage bin. It was I who did it, it was in the past, the bin had nothing to do with the unloading. The bin enduringly now holds that 100bu of corn. The bin however is NOT full of corn.
we have to see this from Luke's perspective. he never indicates she was always favored with grace from birth or anytime prior to that.
however, from his perspective she was favored with grace when the angel spoke to her and from his perspective she remained that way. that's when the clock starts ticking on the perfect tense.
that should help clear up the issue even more.
No, it didn't depend on Mary. Do you really think God wouldn't have fulfilled His promise of a savior regardless of what Mary said? And the angel said "You will". The angel did NOT say "will you".
Or cognitive thought. The angel did NOT say "will you?". He said "you will". Big difference.
I'll betcha not for Catholics.
According to Rome it alone can interpret scripture .. it must be done by the magisterium to be "infallible " ...another non biblical belief
But could you point us to the "infallible "commentary of the entirety scriptures so we too could have access to the "infallible" meaning
Wrong. You can no more make the atonement a continuous event than you can His birth, the feeding of the 5,000, His triumphal entry into Jerusalem, etc. except by appeal to placing them within the timeless realm of God, which makes a mockery of His revelation to us in which we operate and He relates to us.
For aa shown in post 91 , you want to make the Mass "the same Sacrifice as that of the Cross," "a sacrifice of propitiation," "expiatory for sins," again and again placing the Lord upon your "altar to be offered up again as the Victim for the sins of man," offering "himself a most acceptable Victim to the eternal Father, as he did upon the Cross," "no less than on Calvary," and by which "the work of our redemption is carried out," only manner of offering being different. in that "the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner."
However, Christ plainly declared "It is finished,"
For Christ also hath once suffered for sins , the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: (1 Peter 3:18)
But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; (Hebrews 10:12)
For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. (Hebrews 10:14)
Here you say Jesus does not mean what He says: “”This is my body” no more refers to bread literally being the Lord’s actual or transubstantiated body than “This cup is the new testament in my blood” means the cup is literally blood” That’s too bad for you.
Wrong again, as it is you who are engaging in a practice of endocannibalism, only known among pagans, based upon an inconsistent imposition of semi-literal understanding of the Lord's supper. For the Lord also did not say "this is turned into my body and body," which is what Catholicism teaches, while to be consistent with plain-language hermeneutic then you must regard statement as "I am the door" as literal, as well as those by others.
For the use of figurative language for eating and drinking is quite prevalent in Scripture, in which men are referred to as bread, and drinking water as being the blood of men, and the word of God is eaten, etc
For David distinctly called water the blood of men, and would not drink it, but poured it out on the ground as an offering to the Lord, as it is forbidden to drink blood.
And the three mighty men brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Beth–lehem, that was by the gate, and took it, and brought it to David: nevertheless he would not drink thereof, but poured it out unto the Lord. And he said, Be it far from me, O Lord, that I should do this: is not this the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives? therefore he would not drink it. These things did these three mighty men. (2 Samuel 23:16-17)
To be consistent with their plain-language hermeneutic Caths must also insist this was literal. As well as when God clearly states that the Canaanites were “bread: “Only rebel not ye against the LORD, neither fear ye the people of the land; for they are bread for us” (Num. 14:9)
And or that the Promised Land was “a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof.” (Num. 13:32)
And or when David said that his enemies came to “eat up my flesh.” (Ps. 27:2)
And or when Jeremiah proclaimed, Your words were found. and I ate them. and your word was to me the joy and rejoicing of my heart” (Jer. 15:16)
And or when Ezekiel was told, “eat this scroll, and go, speak to the house of Israel.” (Ezek. 3:1)
And or when (in a phrase similar to the Lord’s supper) John is commanded, “Take the scroll ... Take it and eat it.” (Rev. 10:8-9 )
Furthermore, the use of figurative language for Christ and spiritual things abounds in John, using the physical to refer to the spiritual:
• In John 1:29, Jesus is called “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” — but he does not have hoofs and literal physical wool.
• In John 2:19 Jesus is the temple of God: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” — but He is not made of literal stone.
• In John 3:14,15, Jesus is the likened to the serpent in the wilderness (Num. 21) who must “be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal” (vs. 14, 15) — but He is not made of literal bronze.
• In John 4:14, Jesus provides living water, that “whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life” (v. 14) — but which was not literally consumed by mouth.
• In John 7:37 Jesus is the One who promises “He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water” — but this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive. (John 7:38)
• In Jn. 9:5 Jesus is “the Light of the world” — but who is not blocked by an umbrella.
• In John 10, Jesus is “the door of the sheep,”, and the good shepherd [who] giveth his life for the sheep”, “that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly” vs. 7, 10, 11) — but who again, is not literally an animal with cloven hoofs.
• In John 15, Jesus is the true vine — but who does not physically grow from the ground nor whose fruit is literally physically consumed.
Moreover, nowhere in Scripture was physically eating anything literal the means of obtaining spiritual and eternal life, but which by believing the word of God, the gospel. By which one is born again. (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13) For His words are spirit, and life. (Jm. 6:63)
Jn 6, and which we see examples of the Lord,
speaking in an apparently physical way in order to reveal the spiritual meaning to those who awaited the meaning, which, as elsewhere, the Lord revealed to true seekers.
In. Jn. 2:19,20, the Lord spoke in a way that seems to refer to destroying the physical temple in which He had just drove out the money changers, and left the Jews to that misapprehension of His words, so that this was a charge during His trial and crucifixion by the carnally minded. (Mk. 14:58; 15:29) But the meaning was revealed to His disciples after the resurrection.
Likewise, in Jn. 3:3, the Lord spoke in such an apparently physical way that Nicodemus exclaimed, "How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" (John 3:4)
And in which, as is characteristic of John, and as seen in Jn. 6:63, the Lord goes on to distinguish btwn the flesh and the Spirit, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit," (John 3:6) leaving Nicodemus to figure it out, requiring seeking, rather than making it clear. Which requires reading more than that chapter, as with Jn. 6, revealing being born spiritually in regeneration. (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13; 2:5)
Likewise in Jn. 4, beside a well of physical water, the Lord spoke to a women seeking such water of a water which would never leave the drinker to thirst again, which again was understood as being physical. But which was subtly inferred to be spiritual to the inquirer who stayed the course, but which is only made clear by reading more of Scriptural revelation.
And thus we see the same manner of revelation in Jn. 6, in which the Lord spoke to souls seeking physical sustenance of a food which would never leave the eater to hunger again. Which again was understood as being physical, but which was subtly inferred to be spiritual to the inquirers who stayed the course. But which is only made clear by reading more of Scriptural revelation.
In so doing the Lord makes living by this "bread" of flesh and blood as analogous to how He lived by the Father, "As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me." (John 6:57)
And the manner by which the Lord lived by the Father was as per Mt. 4:4: "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4)
And therefore, once again using metaphor, the Lord stated to disciples who thought He was referring to physical bread, "My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work." (John 4:34)
And likewise the Lord revealed that He would not even be with them physically in the future, but that His words are Spirit and life:
What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. (John 6:62-63)
And as with those who imagined the Lord was referring to the physical Temple, the Lord left the protoCatholics to go their own way, who seemed to have yet imagined that the Lord was sanctioning a form of cannibaalism, or otherwise had no heart for further seeking of the Lord who has "the words of eternal life" as saith Peter, not the flesh, eating of which profits nothing spiritually..
And which is made clear by reading more of Scriptural revelation For as shown, the fact is that the allegorical understanding of Jn. 6:27-69 is the only one that is consistent with the rest of Scripture, and again, which nowhere in all of Scripture is spiritual and eternal life gained by literally eating anything physical, which manner of eating is what Jn. 6:53,54 makes as an imperative according to the literalistic interpretation. And as such it must exclude all who deny the literalistic interpretation of this section of Jn. 6.
Supposing one gains spiritual life by literally eating human flesh and blood is endocannibalism, not the Scriptural gospel.
Alpers and Lindenbaum’s research conclusively demonstrated that kuru [neurological disorder] spread easily and rapidly in the Fore people due to their endocannibalistic funeral practices, in which relatives consumed the bodies of the deceased to return the “life force” of the deceased to the hamlet, a Fore societal subunit. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_%...9#Transmission
he custom of eating bread sacramentally as the body of a god was practised by the Aztecs before the discovery and conquest of Mexico by the Spaniards."
The May ceremony is thus described by the historian Acosta: “The Mexicans in the month of May made their principal feast to their god Vitzilipuztli, and two days before this feast, the virgins whereof I have spoken (the which were shut up and secluded in the same temple and were as it were religious women) did mingle a quantity of the seed of beets with roasted maize, and then they did mould it with honey, making an idol...all the virgins came out of their convent, bringing pieces of paste compounded of beets and roasted maize, which was of the same paste whereof their idol was made and compounded, and they were of the fashion of great bones. They delivered them to the young men, who carried them up and laid them at the idol’s feet, wherewith they filled the whole place that it could receive no more. They called these morsels of paste the flesh and bones of Vitzilipuztli.
...then putting themselves in order about those morsels and pieces of paste, they used certain ceremonies with singing and dancing. By means whereof they were blessed and consecrated for the flesh and bones of this idol. This ceremony and blessing (whereby they were taken for the flesh and bones of the idol) being ended, they honoured those pieces in the same sort as their god....then putting themselves in order about those morsels and pieces of paste, they used certain ceremonies with singing and dancing. By means whereof they were blessed and consecrated for the flesh and bones of this idol. This ceremony and blessing (whereby they were taken for the flesh and bones of the idol) being ended, they honoured those pieces in the same sort as their god...
And this should be eaten at the point of day, and they should drink no water nor any other thing till after noon: they held it for an ill sign, yea, for sacrilege to do the contrary:...and then they gave them to the people in manner of a communion, beginning with the greater, and continuing unto the rest, both men, women, and little children, who received it with such tears, fear, and reverence as it was an admirable thing, saying that they did eat the flesh and bones of God, where-with they were grieved. Such as had any sick folks demanded thereof for them, and carried it with great reverence and veneration.”
...They believed that by consecrating bread their priests could turn it into the very body of their god, so that all who thereupon partook of the consecrated bread entered into a mystic communion with the deity by receiving a portion of his divine substance into themselves.
The doctrine of transubstantiation, or the magical conversion of bread into flesh, was also familiar to the Aryans of ancient India long before the spread and even the rise of Christianity. The Brahmans taught that the rice-cakes offered in sacrifice were substitutes for human beings, and that they were actually converted into the real bodies of men by the manipulation of the priest.
...At the festival of the winter solstice in December the Aztecs killed their god Huitzilopochtli in effigy first and ate him afterwards. - http://www.bartleby.com/196/121.html
There may be some differences, but these have far more in common with the Cath idea of the Eucharist than anything seen in Scripture interpretive of the words of the last supper.
It seems such ardent defenders of Rome sadly have no other choices if they will remain such. But by God's grace we could have been the like.
He DIDN'T institute the Catholic church. That's what they CLAIM but their claiming it doesn't make it so. That's just what you have been taught all your life and likely, just like the rest of us cradle Catholics until God opened our eyes, blindly accepted it in unquestioning obedience to the Catholic church.
There are other groups who claim to be the one true church as well, the best known is the Mormons.
Jesus said He would BUILD His church. He didn't say *I am establishing a church*. The body of Christ is comprised of individual believers through out time and space irregardless of denominational affiliation.
The gift He gave us is the Holy Spirit, not some religious organization that burdens men down with more hoops to jump through to get to heaven than the Jews made up. He came to set us FREE, not to put us into another form of bondage.
They’re not factual.
They’re man-made fabrications of Catholicism.
So tell us, since other organizations call themselves the one true church as well, how is someone to know which one really is?
yes, angels have freewill, too.
You still do not know Greek
Amen and Amen!!
O don’t chicken out now. Go through it letter my letter for us. Show us where “full of grace” is found.
Pride goeth before the fall
Don't we know it! Those Catholics bragging and being so prideful they think they are the ones who wrote scripture and we should all thank them. Those prideful Catholics claiming they are the only church. Those prideful Catholics denouncing anyone who doesn't belong to that organization is not saved. Pride goeth before a fall indeed. See Revelation 18.
Amen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.