Posted on 09/02/2011 9:07:47 AM PDT by marshmallow
Minneapolis, Minnesota (CNN) –Prior to 2006, few people even knew that then-Minnesota state legislator Keith Ellison was a Muslim. Because of his English name, he said, no one thought to ask.
But five years ago, when he ran for a seat in the United States House of Representatives - a race he would go on to win - word of his religious affiliation began to spread.
“When I started running for Congress it actually took me by surprise that so many people were fascinated with me being the first Muslim in Congress,” said Ellison, a Democrat now serving his third term in the House.
“But someone said to me, ‘Look Keith, think of a person of Japanese origin running for Congress six years after Pearl Harbor–this might be a news story.’”
Though Ellison's status as the first Muslim elected to Congress is widely known, fewer are aware that he was born into a Catholic family in Detroit and was brought up attending Catholic schools.
But he said he was never comfortable with that faith.
“I just felt it was ritual and dogma,” Ellison said. “Of course, that’s not the reality of Catholicism, but it’s the reality I lived. So I just kind of lost interest and stopped going to Mass unless I was required to.”
It wasn’t until he was a student at Wayne State University in Detroit when Ellison began, “looking for other things.”
(Excerpt) Read more at religion.blogs.cnn.com ...
Imagine that.
It's the blood that cleanses us from sin, not the washing of dirt from the body.
Sin is an internal heart issue, not an external, physical body issue. Getting the skin on the body wet does not cleanse the soul from the guilt of sin.
Jesus Himself said that His blood was necessary for the forgiveness of sin.
Matthew 26:27-29 27And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you, 28for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
Hebrews 9:22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.
1 John 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.
Revelation 7:13-14 13Then one of the elders addressed me, saying, "Who are these, clothed in white robes, and from where have they come?" 14I said to him, "Sir, you know." And he said to me, "These are the ones coming out of the great tribulation. They have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
If washing the body could gain the forgiveness of sin, then Jesus died for nothing.
"...wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead." The SPIRITUAL resurrection from death in trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1-9). It is an operation OF GOD, not of a priest who baptizes in water (1 Cor.12:13; Rom. 6:1-10; Gal. 3:27).
It is made effective THROUGH THE FAITH OF THE OPERATION OF GOD, NOT THROUGH THE OPERATION OF THE PRIEST, MINISTER, PREACHER, etc.
Still having problems with this work of the Holy Spirit?
Read the next verse, 2:13."And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses:"..
This verse is the same in doctrine as Eph.2:1,5,11. This PROVES that the baptism of Col.2:12 is NOT one in water by a priest. It is God here that quickens or resurrects from death in trespasses and sins. No priest, minister, preacher can do this by water.
Colossians 2:11-23 are a continuous explanation of the work of the Holy Spirit in placing us into the Body of Christ. And not a single person gets wet.
Really? Then why the comment in post 2844?
And why all the speculation here?
You might be able to convince us of that if you'd drop the subject and stop asking twisted questions.
The only one greater then Jesus is John the Baptist. Not Mary. Jesus said so.
That’s a pretty clear insinuation.
Baptism saves. But not really because no Catholic is sure of their salvation based on baptism, because they are then taught that the Eucharist is necessary for salvation.
You have to go to confession and then are permitted to partake the eucharist which Catholicism teaches is required to be eaten in order to be saved.
But even then most Catholics aren’t sure of their salvation.
So then when you’re stuck depending on last rites, if they can get to you in time and that works. Of course, since no one knows for sure, there’s always protocol for getting the soul out of purgatory, if they’re fortunate enough to have made it there instead of hell.
In short, all the promises of God about our salvation notwithstanding, the average Catholic has no assurance of salvation through any of the works that they and Catholicism state are necessary to accomplish in order to gain salvation.
Ephesians 1 13In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, 14who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.
You have made it quite obvious that you worship the magesterium in your own mirror every time you split off from what they have decided is doctrine of the Catholic faith. You must know very well that they have made declarations of the infallible, God-inspired, error free Holy Scriptures and assert exactly that in the Catechism you "say" you uphold. You apparently are stuck on the problem you think you see in differing accounts of the resurrection morning and, in truth, it is no more mysterious than voicing the viewpoints of the different people who gave their own accounts to the writer. No retelling of a real event is ever in perfect sync between various people and, if they were, it would prove a prior conspiracy between them to all tell the exact same thing. This, by the way, is a good way police investigating a crime can judge the truthfulness of the witnesses. No one person sees everything it exactly the same was as another especially not when they happen upon a scene at different times.
Your own Magesterium holds that the Holy Spirit "breathed" the very words to the hearts of the writers of Scripture, yet you state time after time that you STILL cannot come to terms with what you say are "discrepancies", which is only a slightly nicer way to say errors or contradictions.
On this point I am closer to the doctrine of Scriptural integrity of your Magesterium than you are. How did THAT happen?
I do believe that Jesus is the only Mediator between God and man and without Him there is no salvation.
That is what a Catholic believes.
I also believe that Jesus chose Mary to be the way that He came to us and that He chose men to bring the message to us throughout history.
They are not the same thing, nor does veneration of Mary and the intercession of the saints deny that Truth. It confirms it.
Maybe that is why they view his death on the cross as a tragedy instead of a victory
Peter preached at Pentecost that same message: "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins...(Acts 2:38).
Paul was saved in Acts 9 and was baptized. (Acts 9:18).
Hebrews 9:16,17: "For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament if of force AFTER men are dead; otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth."
Christ's blood could not be given for the remission of sins during His time on earth because HE HAD NOT DIED FOR OUR SINS YET. Peter and the 11 did not know He was going to die FOR OUR SINS. Read Peter's sermon on the day of Pentecost. Does he share the good news that Christ died for our sins? Does he excitedly tell everyone that the blood of Christ is for the remission of sins? NO. Because he did not know that. Read Acts 2 again and again if you have to. It's NOT good news Peter is spreading.
Now to Paul. He is saved in Acts 9 and is baptized within 3 days of his first blinding vision from the risen Christ. Of COURSE he is baptized. It is in keeping with the Kingdom gospel for the Jews.
In Galatians 2:7, Paul says this gospel of the uncircumcision-Grace_ was committed unto him. Are they the same gospel? Peter's gospel included a command to preach and baptize, Paul's gospel does not. "For Christ sent me NOT TO BAPTIZE, but to preach the gospel..."1 Cor. 1:17.
But didn't Paul baptize some/ Yes, but he says "I THANK GOD that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius...the household of Stephanas...I know NOT whither I baptized any other."
His gospel OBVIOUSLY could NOT have contained the command to baptize, otherwise he would not have thanked God that he baptized so few.
It is very clear in Scripture that when the Dispensation of Grace began with the setting aside of Israel, Acts 28, water baptism, a Jewish ordinance, was set aside too. Baptism was a washing or a cleansing, something done by man for man's temporal cleansing. After the Dispensation of Grace began, Paul no longer preached, practiced, or performed things that were Jewish in character.
He preached the Grace of God. The Cross. Where the blood of Christ cleanses us from all sin. Something that could not have been preached before the death of the testator (Jesus Christ) and something that was kept secret until revealed to the Apostle Paul by direct revelations of Jesus Christ. The preaching of the cross is the shedding of Christ's blood for the remission of our sins. Not water.
Profitable, not only or sole. Even Scripture goes no further.
To say otherwise is to read into it what is not there.
Protestants do this all the time when interpreting Scripture.
One may reject what the Church teaches and holds to be true.
That is different than what happens here.
Isn’t it weird, the bi-polar love/hate they have for Paul? They disdain him until they get desperate, then they pull him out of the Kleenex box, blow a couple of times, then throw him into the trash and walk away.
I think you are exactly right, Lera. It’s the empty tomb they cannot seem to come to terms with. The empty tomb is our promise and proof from God that the penalty for our sins was paid IN FULL by Christ, otherwise He could not have raised Him from the dead. Praise God!
Romans 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Baptism just like the Protestant communion are a spiritual exercises. It is not the water that cleanses any more then the bread and wine physically become the body and blood of Jesus. They are in both cases the spiritual equivalent of being cleansed by the blood and partaking of the flesh and blood of Christ.
Do we need to be baptized? Yes, it’s a spiritual exercise of being cleansed by the blood. We walk in the spirit not in the flesh.
If we are talking about a "gift" from another person, then of course. Can a person refuse to accept the gift of eternal life that God offers the world through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, yes they can and many do, especially those who prefer to earn it themselves. It would be like your kid gives you a clay plate made with their own sweet little hand print made in kindergarten. You look it over and say, "Naw, I can do it better.". How do you think that would affect your child? Yet we do the same thing every time we tell God that we refuse to accept the gift of eternal life he gave us by his grace that we receive by faith.
The real problem with that, though, is we can't do a "better job", we cannot make a satisfactory payment for our sins and expect that after a few eons we will finally make it there. That is NOT how it works and that is exactly why Christ came and made the payment in our place. And once we receive this gift, we become born again and indwelt with the Holy Spirit which God says in the "earnest of our inheritance". This means it is the down-payment, so to speak, for the future he has planned for us with him in heaven for eternity.
Can we "give it back"? Ummm....NO. First of all, why would we knowing the priceless worth of the gift? Secondly, with the indwelling Spirit of God, we won't want to forsake it. You seem to always bring this objection up whenever anyone talks about eternal security. To me, it sounds like you think it may be a common occurrence rather than an exception. A person who has genuinely come to Christ by faith, will have no desire to ever forsake him and if someone actually says they have, then I can only question the sincerity of their conversion in the first place because it is not God that is denying them.
Now, can a Christian "backslide" into a sinful way of life? Yes, they can and some do, but it is not a denial of their faith rather it is a case of taking our eyes off Christ and slipping into the deep. But God is never going to forsake us or lose us or cast us out, he will always be drawing us back to him ready to forgive and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. No sin is so grave that cannot be forgiven by a merciful and gracious God.
And, in anticipation of your next challenge, if a Christian dies in a state of unconfessed sin, will he STILL go to heaven? The answer is YES. We are not saved by our good works and sinless living and that means we are not kept saved by those same deeds. God is THAT merciful. What a Savior we have!!!
At any rate, they were clearly politically motivated, i.e. to subdue the Jews and Muslims.
My point was that Jesus did not give the veneration to Mary that the Catholics do. Even when the woman said Mary was blessed Jesus said the people who believed in Him were more blessed. That makes us more blessed then Mary.
The Catholic Church certainly does consider the Scriptures to be infallible, God-inspired, error free Holy Scriptures and Catholics do uphold those. Mark did not say that the Scriptures contradict each other, only that they apparently do. It is up to us to rationalize their unified and comprehensive meaning.
Some believe that God chose these apparently contradictory passages to illustrate that we cannot rely upon the entire Bible in its unified context, not individual versus and snippets. Since none of us are clever enough to learn this by ourselves, we Catholics call upon the Magisterium to decide.
In the case of Islam though - considering Sharia law and how Islam brutally and mercilessly grabs power - I would venture that political power was Muhammed's goal from the beginning and that the "religion" was fabricated for that purpose, i.e. Ummah.
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.