Posted on 10/15/2001 6:54:40 AM PDT by malakhi
| Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
Really? what is it we do that offends you so?
{^_^}
I guess I don't get credit since it took more than 30 sec?
The answer is simple. Understand the Passover that Christ was celebrating in the last supper. You're first-born was not saved merely by the family's faith...nor by the sacrifice of an unblemished lamb (Christ)... nor by the spreading of His blood to cover the doorposts (our Sin)... You had to eat the lamb (Lamb)
It was bread and wine after the order of Melchizedek... and to end the necessity of a bloody sacrifice.
Easy, John 6:56-57. Christ isn't in you... sorry.
Since you ignored my analogy of the Christmas gift (I'd still like an answer to that), I'll use yours. If you had an adopted son and he disobeyed you, would you reject him and kick him out of the family or just discipline him to teach him the right way? The RC way, making the gift of sonship at all conditional on obedience, means he is out of the family.
It isn't the flesh of the savior. It is something to contemplate. He was here on earth. His body was torn as the bread was torn. And his blood flowed as wine. The communion is a reverent rememberance and contemplation of what was done for us. And True Christians take communion with the Lord each and every time because he is within us. We are the temple. Bread doesn't become flesh and wine does not become blood. Would you like us to take a communion wafer and cup from a catholic church and prove to you that neither contains 2000 year old dna? It can be done. Oh that's right It doesn't really become flesh and blood lest ye all be called cannibals sacrificing the flesh of a man and eating it.. it's merely symbolic; but, anyone denying that it doesn't really happen is anathema.. So it's double talk because your own leaders haven't a clue what it means. Those of us that understand these things understand it very well. We don't need Jesus tied to something to experience his presence. He lives in His temple. And Christians are his temple per the word of God.
Ya'll haven't a clue other than what you're taught. But the doublespeak from your clergy says they're clueless. I know, I know, you have to embrace the confusion and difer to the blind, lest you be in disagreement with Catholicism. God is not the author of confusion. Nor does he possess bread and wine to reveal himself to those who he's supposed to be living in. If you have to eat bread and wine to meet with Jesus You've missed him cause he isn't in either. He's supposed to be in you. You You You. Not the bread, You. Not the wine, You. Now, if he's not in you, are you partaking worthily? You'd best think long and hard about that one. In all seriousness, you are responsible for it.
Disobeyed? no. Disinherited himself (as with the prodigal son)? It would not be by my choice. That parable takes on more meaning the deeper you take it in this discussion, but the "once saved, always saved" thread has been well fleshed out by both sides on previous threads.
If the obedience, in and of itself, cannot merit Heaven... how can the disobedience (after accepting Christ) merit Hell? Only the rejection of Christ (the disinheriting) could do that and the Spirit guards us against that choice.
By the way, I didn't mean to ignore your Christmas present analogy (I could really use a DVD player if you're still shopping), I agree that it is true...I just didn't see it as terribly on point. The obedience does not merit the free gift... it is a response to it.
All that is involved in venerating Mary. I've seen it, heard it experienced it and so have you. This kind of "thing" should be done for God alone. God is a jealous God, you can look it up.
The things that are not of the Lord do not agree with the Lord. When he's in you, he speaks pretty loudly when one starts crossing into things where he doesn't belong. Get Jesus, you'll understand.
I'll leave you with this thought. Obedience IS required... it just doesn't effect salvation.
The Lord gave commandments not suggestions and obedience did not become optional when our disobedience was forgiven.
Salvation is the only way that true obedience is possible, obedience does not cause salvation.
Now you make me feel bad for defending you. Play nice now kids... "Daddy" is watching. Both sides are more likely to listen (and hopefully learn) when we don't condemn each other to Hell.
Nope. I believe as Jesus and the Apostles taught, that the flesh profits nothing. Flesh and blood pass away as do all things of this world. The only thing of import is the spirit and communion with the body of Christ. Anything else is extra. We weren't put here to indulge the flesh, we were put here to serve God. Paul understood this and that is why he spent so much time on telling us to keep ourselves undercontrol. Faith in Christ and Obedience to God is the only way to do that. One who cannot control himself is disobedient to God. Too many want to excuse absence of control by saying 'it's just human weakness'. Human weakness was overcome by the Lord and through him we can overcome it. It's no excuse - before men or God.
Bingo. Read Exodus, bud.
Well, so far so good... ;o)
and the Talmud is a book of (oxymoron)oral traditions
Its not oxymoronic; they were oral traditions that were written down to avoid losing them at a time when the destruction of the temple and the dispersal of established Jewish communities threatened the continuity of the oral tradition. The traditional Jewish belief is that there is an Written Torah and an Oral Torah, both of which were passed down from the time of Moses.
Let me take a moment to define what the Talmud is. There really is no other written work like it. The organizational structure is not linear. The writing style is very abbreviated, almost a shorthand. So Talmud study is very difficult without being taught by someone who is already trained in the Talmud. If the Torah is the "constitution" of the Jewish people, then the Talmud is our "common law". At its core it is an extensive interpretation of the Torah. When there was a question of some matter of the Torah in its application to a given situation, a sage would be asked to render an opinion. Sometimes different sages would disagree. The Talmud records all sides of these arguments. Because it records dissenting opinions as part of the debate, the Talmud is open to being misrepresented by those who don't understand how it works, or who have an agenda. (Consider if someone in the future looked at these threads, and picked out the Catholic posts and declared them representative of all Christianity. Doing so would leave out the non-Catholic voice, and thus would portray the significance of the debate in a false light). The Talmud also contains stories, parables, moral teachings, sermons, and commentary on all variety of matters.
I also understand that the law the Pharisees accused Christ of breaking, "washing hands, picking corn and etc." was from the Talmud, which at the time could not be used to enforce the law, but inforcement could come only from the Torah..
Let me give a modern example. The Torah prohibits the lighting of a fire on the sabbath. Now, how does this apply to modern life? When question about a new technology arises, as to how it fits into the Law of the sabbath, someone will ask a rabbi for an opinion. These opinions are not binding on all Jews; the weight given to any one rabbi's opinion depends on his reputation for scholarship and holiness. As different rabbis weigh in, a consensus is eventually reached. In Orthodox Judaism, the consensus was that the internal combustion engine operates by burning gasoline, and therefore that the operation of an automobile was prohibited based on the Torah law against fire on the sabbath. Thus is the Law interpreted to account for new situations that were not, and could not have been, explicitly covered in the Torah.
Jesus thought that the Pharisees interpreted the law too strictly. But he never questioned their authority to do so. What he did criticize them for was hypocrisy--telling people to follow an interpretation of the law that they themselves did not observe. Or those who obsessed over the details of observance, but who did not have God in their hearts.
One general rule of Talmudic interpretation is the concept of "building a fence around the Torah". The sages taught that not only should one not violate the Law, but that one should avoid a situation in which one could inadvertently violate the Law (or perhaps be put in a situation of the "near occasion of sin"--deliberately pushing the edge, where temptation might draw you over into sin). Jesus made use of this same principle in his sermon on the mount. For example, not only should you not commit adultery, you should avoid looking at a woman lustfully. Not only should you not kill, but you should avoid harboring anger, which could lead to murder.
"The things that are not of the Lord do not agree with the Lord. When he's in you, he speaks pretty loudly when one starts crossing into things where he doesn't belong. Get Jesus, you'll understand."You will not understand or agree, but you think you are God. There is a distinction between spiritual knowing and identity that has still not come to you.
Your reply was remarkably free of typos, given your "helper"! I have a son who is almost four, and a 14 month old daughter.
That doesn't answer the question. The lamb was eaten by way of symbolism - the rememberance is not a feast of flesh and blood but a rememberance of the Lord's sacrifice of both. The question stands. Why the need to make it seem that Jesus is present in communion when he is supposed to be present in all Christians? If he is present in you, there is no need for him to be present in the communion - none. One need not take communion to experience his presence. One is supposed to experience him every moment they are alive after salvation. If you kill an actual lamb, it's spirit is gone and it is no longer in the body. So your comparison to sacrifice of the lamb is bogus. Jesus is still present in his body and in heaven. There is no body to break - for it has already been broken and rebuilt. That merely leaves the bread and wine for rememberance of the deed. So, again. If Jesus is present in each of us, why the teaching that one must attend mass and take communion to experience the 'real presence'?
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.