Posted on 06/23/2015 10:06:16 AM PDT by RnMomof7
But He DIDN'T!!
Here, it's in this account of the very first church council. It seemed good to the apostles AND THE HOLY SPIRIT, to reiterate the prohibition against eating blood.
Acts 15:12-29 And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. After they finished speaking, James replied, “Brothers, listen to me. Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name. And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written,
“‘After this I will return, and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who makes these things known from of old.’
Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”
Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brothers, with the following letter:
“The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions, it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”
The authority that the apostles and presbyters of the church exercised in Acts 15 the bishops of the church continue to exercise today. I will listen to the Holy Spirit speaking through them rather than to your mere private opinion which makes you one of those who went out without any mandate from them and have upset the believers with your teachings and disturbed their peace of mind. This too was condemned by the Council of Jerusalem.
Moot point. The Gospels do agree with Catholic teaching. It is Protestant teaching that departs from the Gospels. The attempts here to deny the clear words of our Lord that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood and that the bread and wine of the Eucharist are his Body and Blood highlight this. The words of the Gospel are clear on this point. All that Protestants can offer to deny them are specious reasoning and human rationalizations.
bump
How sad. You rely on an institution which clearly only began teaching this sacrilege eight hundred years ago yet modern nicolaitans, er uh modern catholicism demands its adherents nod assent to the sacrilege as if sacred. In catholicism tradition trumps scripture, and so we witness the great falling away.
Matthew 23:1-12 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice.
They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger. They do all their deeds to be seen by others. For they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long, and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces and being called rabbi by others.
But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ. The greatest among you shall be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
I would recommend that you read some church history:
And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone. (St. Justin Martyr, First Apology, LXVI, 155-157 A.D.)
Jesus used the Passover understanding of the disciples to bring Garth the true Passover lamb. The Passover lamb was eaten by the family after the blood was poured out upon the ground and a small portion spread upon the doorposts and lintel. NEVER were they to drink the blood. The time Jesus passed the cup He even referred to the contents as fruit of the vine. And likewise after the meal He took the cup and said 'the cup is the new covenant in my blood poured out for you'.
Was the cup, the physical cup, the new covenant?
Ummmmm
There is only one source that can reconcile the problem and the devout catholic has had it drummed into them to trust the ‘traditions of catholic men’ or the heavenly goddess, rather than what Ordained as our means for instruction in all righteousness, the very source even Jesus quoted to deal with Satan.
LOL, another attempt with that bogus "father" stuff
"I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become in my imprisonment"
Paul claimed to be father to Onesimus. Paul is a man, Paul called himself father. So without a doubt people who play the "call no man father" game have to throw everything that Paul wrote out of the New Testament since we have absolute proof in Scirpture that Paul didn't properly interpret the words of Christ.
Therefore, by their own standards, anything Paul wrote is now worthless and when any of the Self and Self Alone folks refer to anything Paul wrote it's proof positive they're deliberately trying to lead others astray.
What happened to regarding the words of Jesus above any others?
Only when convenient?
That’s a very clever argument you have devised however it’s ultimately self-defeating.
I’m quite certain you believe Jesus’ shed blood is the atonement for your sins. However His Blood was shed on a cross not splashed on an altar.
So if the only way a blood atonement can be effectual is if it is splashed upon an altar and no other way, then Christ’s Sacrifice is of no effect. Which is ludicrous of course but that’s the natural result of your logic.
Thus, since there is no reason to believe the shedding of blood must be splashed on an altar in order for it to be effectual for the forgiveness of sins, then it cant be argued, as you have, that since we Catholics aren’t partaking of the Sacrifice, the way God commanded (in the OT), then it can’t be of any effect.
You aren’t either, that’s the point. The fact that you don’t drink His Blood is of little relevance to the original argument you are making. You still ultimately believe in a method of atonement that is itself, not exactly like the command in Lev 17:11, which is the same criticism you are attempting to level against Catholicism.
So if you’re correct in your rigid interpretation of Lev 17, then you have no means of salvation through His shed blood either, blood shed not on or splashed on an altar but on a cross. A cross is not an altar.
The strong delusion of Protestantism and all that's flowed from it blinds people to the Truth and they play their little games to stroke their own little ego. They follow Eve rather than Christ.
The words of Christ are paramount and Paul calling himself father proves that Christ didn't mean what the lame game players insist He meant. So there it is, Scripture proves Scripture. Exactly what the lame game anti-Catholic crowd say is the way to interpret Scripture proves that the "call no man father" scam so recently brought up on this thrread is just bogus trash. The anti-Catholics own rule disproves the anti-Catholics own lame assertion.
If the example of Paul using the word father isn't sufficient proof that Christ didn't mean what the anti-Catholic scam artists insist He meant, then such folks have to never again quote from anything Paul wrote to butress any argument they make.
So, what's it gonna be? No more quoting of Paul or an admission that the anti-Catholic crowd knowingly twist Scripture to suit their agenda ?
Self ping to this post and post 223 for later. Maybe.
In context, Jesus is addressing calling religious leaders by the title *father*.
No need to throw out Paul for that reason.
But Catholics keep ignoring the clear, direct, unequivocal command of Jesus by excusing and justifying their actions.
Disobeying Jesus never ends well. They need to rethink what they’re doing when they try to rationalize and justify their disobedience.
IOW, exactly the same thing the anti-Catholic crowd who accept anti-Christ, anti-Christian, Jewish Pharisees as their final authority on the canon of Scripture and in doing blaspheme the Holy Spirit as being incapable of protecting Scripture from the inclusion of error.
Spraying some ink in the water like an octopus doesn't hide the holes in that lame argument from someone who embraces the specific school of Jamani as their father just like a good little Pharisee and thereby does the very thing you Christ was actually talking about.
Pharisees are SNAKES and also Blind Men.
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.