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 ...
The physical and the spiritual working together, as God did in Jesus. It was a physical body that Jesus lay down, it was physical blood that He shed and it was His physical body that was resurrected and glorified.
Yes it was. Under the OLD LAW it had to be thus. Once He had fulfilled the OLD LAW it was no longer the physical that was required. In the New Testament the law is no longer outward (physical) but inward (spiritual).
>>His physical body that was resurrected and glorified.<<
I surely hope that you don’t think the physical body is the same as the glorified body. The physical body cannot “appear” unto them.
Of course you were.
The *IT* I was referring to was WATER BAPTISM, not circumcision. WATER BAPTISM WHICH IS PART OF THE DAVIDIC COVENANT, which I gave you Scripture for, to read for yourself.
Let me try it this way:
Paul was commissioned to a two-fold ministry during the Acts period (Acts 9:15 with Acts 13:3,47; 26:16-19).
FIRST, Paul had a ministry of confirmation of Christ as Messiah to Israel. Paul preached to the Jews concerning Jesus, the promised Messiah. (Acts 13:14-41; 18:5; 26:22; 28;23).
HENCE, Paul went to the Jew first. (Rom. 1:16 with Acts 13:5, 14, 46).
HENCE, in Paul's Acts ministry and his FIRST SIX EPISTLES, he performed many miracles, signs and wonders (Acts 19:12) and LEGAL CEREMONIES(Acts 16:3-4),"...BECAUSE OF THE JEWS" (Acts 16:3) (cf. 1 Cor. 9:20-23; 10:32.) THIS INCLUDES 1 Cor. 1:14-17.
The miracles, signs, wonders, and legal ceremonies he performed during the Acts period and his first six Epistles were clearly "..because of the Jews" (Acts 16:3).
So, what WERE those first six Epistles that concerned "to the Jew first" and "because of the Jews"?
1. 1 Thessalonians.
2. 2 Thessalonians.
3. Galatians.
4. 1 CORINTHIANS.
5. 2 Corinthians.
6. Romans.
Secondly, Paul had a ministry of revelation. Paul preached the unsearchable (unprophesied) riches of Christ (Eph.3:8); the gospel of the uncircumcision (Gal. 2:7), or the ministry of reconciliation by grace alone (2 Cor. 5:18-19; Eph. 2:8-9). Meaning Paul preached the dispensation of the mystery (Eph. 3:9). In Acts 18:6 (45 A.D.), the Church is gradually growing, but we know that Israel has not been set aside yet. That doesn't happen until Acts 28. Until that happened, there was a transition going on from a kingdom of believers to a body of believers. Acts 18 is just about the middle point of the transition.
“I mentioned that there was a Moody Bible prof who refused to teach anything other than St. Paul’s letters because he believed the gospel was only in St. Paul. He didn’t believe Christ taught the gospel. Imagine that!”
That’s nonsense. Moody is a revivalist school and would not contenance anyone on their faculty with that belief. It would be contrary to their statement of faith.
Timothy was circumcised because of his Jewish ancestry and Jewish community. That cannot be said for the Gentile communities. I see no indication that baptism was practiced simply because of Jewish Christian tradition or edict. Given that Paul baptized those who were Gentile in non Jewish areas tells me that he did indeed baptize and there is no real evidence that baptism has been abolished any more then the Lords Supper or communion.
After doing a little research, I think I understand more fully what you are saying here, though, again, I disagree with your conclusions.
The New Covenant which Jesus institutes was not a complete break from the old, but a perfecting of it. And the gospel of grace I think is the message that the grace which was first given to the Jews is now poured out for all who believe in Jesus Christ.
Where before, those who were Jewish were born into the covenant by virtue of their race, now we are all adopted by virtue of our belief in the saving grace of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
The good news is the same for both Jews and Gentiles then.
It is that through Jesus, we are all God’s children, heirs to the Kingdom. We, though not of Jewish birth are a new branch of the vine which is Jesus, who because He is eternal is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.
I believe what I said in my previous post regarding Paul and his relationship to the others and to the gospel.
What you write is interesting, and I see that many people believe it, but I am not one of them, because I believe that the progressive revelations of God were meant to unite all His people.
So it was only Jesus’ spirit that appeared to them and was assumed into heaven?
That makes no sense, Jesus ate with them and Thomas touched His wounds. He was physically present with them.
Do you believe that the resurrection is of our physical bodies glorified and made incorruptible?
One might even say "comic book" version of the Catholic Church.
I have hesitated to answer this question as I know the answer you think you want, or will get or is the only correct one.
I believe that we are all the final authority of what we believe and why. It’s that simple. Who believes anything against their own will? Such a belief is not genuine.
I believe that Scriptures and the Church are both gifts to the faithful and they work in union with each other and not in competition.
I believe what the Church teaches about God, Jesus, Forgiveness, Salvation, Mary, The Church and the believer.
I came to that belief through prayer and study of Scripture, led to the Church by the Holy Spirit, not because I have been brainwashed or cowed into it by the Church or anyone in it.
I have free will to believe or not believe what the Church teaches and if I will be Catholic or not Catholic.
Because I believe, I submit to the authority of the Church to teach, to guide me on my journey and to dispense the graces of the Sacraments according to God’s Word.
Evidently you didn’t see the “glorified body” part of my last post. Physical as in the type of body that we now have not so much.
Assuming this person did exist, and believed what our anonymous Catholic apologist claims, I seriously doubt Moody kept him on the faculty long once he was outed.
I tend to agree with you one this..Baptism as an outward sign of an inward change.
Some protestant traditions look upon it as an outward sign of the covenant..
But one way or another what we know as regenerate believers is baptism saves no one
OKay...
yes, I did, the body that was glorified was the same body that died.
And yet another divergence from Nicene Christianity, but then no one ever said Paulinity was Christianity.
Exactly...We chose bible Christianity instead...
CB:Yes it was. Under the OLD LAW it had to be thus. Once He had fulfilled the OLD LAW it was no longer the physical that was required. In the New Testament the law is no longer outward (physical) but inward (spiritual).
That seems to be what's tripping up the Catholic s the most.
The Law never could do anything for mankind in terms of redemption except to point to Christ. The physical was always a foreshadowing of the spiritual, not the reality itself.
It's always only been Jesus who saved, not the Law which pointed to Him.
Jvette, really, “the same body that it was” it is not. Surely you know better then that.
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.