Birth Control and Baptists

R. Albert Mohler, Jr., President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary isn't sure if Birth Control is a sin.

Romans10:13 For “whoever calls on the name of the Lord SHALL BE SAVED.”

Acts 2:21 ‘And it shall be that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’

Now the Book of Acts is believed to be written by Luke. Where would Luke get that viewpoint from?

But lets look further, in context.

Acts 2:14 But Peter, taking his stand with the eleven, raised his voice and declared to them: “Men of Judea and all you who live in Jerusalem, let this be known to you and give heed to my words. 15 For these men are not drunk, as you suppose, for it is only the third hour of the day; 16 but this is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel: 17 ‘ And it shall be in the last days,’ God says, ‘That I will pour forth of My Spirit on all mankind; And your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, And your young men shall see visions, And your old men shall dream dreams; 18 Even on My bondslaves, both men and women, I will in those days pour forth of My Spirit And they shall prophesy. 19 ‘And I will grant wonders in the sky above And signs on the earth below, Blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke. 20 ‘The sun will be turned into darkness And the moon into blood, Before the great and glorious day of the Lord shall come. 21 ‘And it shall be that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’

So we have Luke, an Apostle, quoting Peter, an Apostle. Both eye/ear witnesses to Jesus' teachings.

IF Peter would have been wrong, I'm sure Luke would have corrected him, or left what Peter said out.

BUT...we need to look at something else. Acts 2:16 but this is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel:

So now we go to Joel 2

28 “ It will come about after this That I will pour out My Spirit on all mankind; And your sons and daughters will prophesy, Your old men will dream dreams, Your young men will see visions. 29 “Even on the male and female servants I will pour out My Spirit in those days. The Day of the Lord 30 “I will display wonders in the sky and on the earth, Blood, fire and columns of smoke. 31 “The sun will be turned into darkness And the moon into blood Before the great and awesome day of the Lord comes. 32 “And it will come about that whoever calls on the name of the Lord Will be delivered;

SO we have Paul, who you don't like.

We have Luke an Apostle, quoting Peter, an Apostle and Peter quoting Joel, a prophet of God. And a prophet had pretty strict requirements.

Oh yes...Acts 2:17 ‘ And it shall be in the last days,’ God says, ‘That I will pour forth of My Spirit on all mankind;

So...Luke, who is quoting Peter, who is quoting Joel, and Peter says 'God says...'

So cutting to the chase, Peter says 'God says', and by Luke writing this, agrees with Peter.

Here is David
Psalm 116:13 I shall lift up the cup of salvation And call upon the name of the Lord.

Now, as far as Paul veracity.

Paul claims his apostleship
Romans 1: 1 Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God

Galatioans 11 Paul, an apostle ( not sent from men nor through the agency of man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead), 2 and all the brethren who are with me,

Now about his knowledge of salvation
11 For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

15 But when God, who had set me apart even from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, was pleased 16 to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went away to Arabia, and returned once more to Damascus. 18 Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. 20 (Now in what I am writing to you, I assure you before God that I am not lying.) 21 Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. 22 I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea which were in Christ; 23 but only, they kept hearing, “He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith which he once tried to destroy.” 24 And they were glorifying God because of me.

So Paul didn't receive the Gospel through men, but through direct Revelation from Christ. 3 years later, AFTER preaching to others, he goes to Jerusalem and meets with Peter and James, Jesus' brother. 2 who would have knowledge and authority to refute Pauls message.

Also in Acts 13: 2 While they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 Then, when they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. 4 So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleucia and from there they sailed to Cyprus. 5 When they reached Salamis, they began to proclaim the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews; and they also had John as their helper. 6 When they had gone through the whole island as far as Paphos, they found a magician, a Jewish false prophet whose name was Bar-Jesus, 7 who was with the proconsul, Sergius Paulus, a man of intelligence. This man summoned Barnabas and Saul and sought to hear the word of God. 8 But Elymas the magician (for so his name is translated) was opposing them, seeking to turn the proconsul away from the faith. 9 But Saul, who was also known as Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, fixed his gaze on him, 10 and said, “You who are full of all deceit and fraud, you son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, will you not cease to make crooked the straight ways of the Lord? 11 Now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon you, and you will be blind and not see the sun for a time.” And immediately a mist and a darkness fell upon him, and he went about seeking those who would lead him by the hand.

So...according to the author of Acts, Paul was called and sent AND FILLED by the Holy Spirit.

And yet YOU, with no first hand knowledge dare to doubt Pauls authority.

Peter never doubted it.

First and second century church fathers, who had first and second hand accounts from the Apostles themselves, of Christs Gospel were the ones who kept Pauls writings. IF these church fathers had a problem with Pauls teachings, they never would have made it in todays Bible.

Amazing that 2000 years ago, church fathers kept 4 accounts of Christ, given to them by others than Christ. They also esteemed Pauls teachings, even the ones "scolding" them.

And yet YOU, with no first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth or even SIXTIETH hand account, have the AUDACITY to discount Pauls teaching.

By what authority or revelation do you come by this???

You claim superior wisdom and knowledge than those who were actually there???

Maybe you just feel that the 4 Gospels are the only authoritative books. Why is that? Jesus didn't write them. In fact Luke, who wrote the book of Luke, is believed to have wrote the book of Acts.

Or maybe you just cut out everything from the Gospels except for the quotes of Christs words. If thats the case, how do you know the authors were accurate?

So...How do YOU decide what is authentic and truthful in the Bible?

"Paul, ...Luke, an Apostle, quoting Peter, an Apostle. ....Joel, "

No one is quoting God though. These folks don't trump what God Himself said. Also, Luke is not an apostle.

"God says, ‘That I will pour forth of My Spirit on all mankind;"

Not the same as "saved" and it's also not a quote.

"So...Luke, who is quoting Peter, who is quoting Joel, and Peter says 'God says...' So cutting to the chase, Peter says 'God says', and by Luke writing this, agrees with Peter."

Moses said the divorce laws came from God. God corrected him in person and said Moses gave y'all the divorce laws, because your hearts were hard. It was not that way from the beginning and God never changed His mind in the matter — as He pointed out.

Here's what Luke really says. Notice how complete it is. It's a direct quote of what God said about the matter. Luke 6:46-49 “Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say? As for everyone who comes to me and hears my words and puts them into practice, I will show you what they are like. They are like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built. But the one who hears my words and does not put them into practice is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. The moment the torrent struck that house, it collapsed and its destruction was complete.”

Notice how God expects and demands works. Why do you think folks try so damn hard to escape that? what did Isaiah say about folks that honor Him with their lips?

"So Paul didn't receive the Gospel through men, but through direct Revelation from Christ.

There is no Gospel of Paul. Nevertheless, what God said about Moses applies to Paul also.

"And yet YOU, with no first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth or even SIXTIETH hand account, have the AUDACITY to discount Pauls teaching.

I have The Account and the gifts given per Gen 1;26,27; that is sufficient.

"By what authority or revelation do you come by this???"

Logic and The Account.

"Or maybe you just cut out everything from the Gospels except for the quotes of Christs words.

If one wants to know God, they must go to God, not someone else. If you go to someone else to learn, you will be learning about them.

"If thats the case, how do you know the authors were accurate?"

If the quotes were contrived by men, they would not have the perfect logical consistency that they do.

"So...How do YOU decide what is authentic and truthful in the Bible?"

Reference the master.

Let me first ask you:

— Is His Incorruptible Blood a constituent of the Eucharist?
— Is His current Spiritual, Indestructible Body a constituent of the Eucharist?
— If so, what happens to these if they are physical, material Presences and if they are consumed, passing into the human ailmentary canal?
Judas of Kerioth ate and drank of both.
— How did that affect him, if the pronouncement of The Master is to be taken as literal language, and not figurative-literal language nor allegorical metaphor?

— Your answer in 100 words or less is - what?

(No external authorities other than The Holy Scriptures, Koine and/or a literal equivalence translation)

~ ~ ~

— Yes, at the priest’s words of consecration, all of Christ is present, His risen body, blood, soul and divinity. The “substance” is changed but the “accidents” the bread and wine remain the same, you have to believe by faith because you do not see a change. God said it is true, it’s supernatural. For those with little faith, who doubt, there are Eucharistic miracles throughout the centuries.

— The Body of Christ remains as long as the sacramental species remain intact, that is, until they corrupt.

— John states Judas immediately left, I do not think
Judas received the Eucharist, Jesus had not instituted the
Eucharist yet. The “morsel” was part of the Seder meal.

_ _ Jesus wasn’t speaking metaphorically, otherwise He
would of gone after the disciples who left in disbelief and explained to them, My presence is only figurative. He didn’t.

Your last sentence, your request, I would like to ask you, where does it say in Scripture, all of God’s revelation is contained in the Bible? Scripture states the Church is our “authority” not the Bible 1 Tim 3:15. The Church gave the
world the Bible. It makes sense.

The Apostolic Fathers believed in the Real Presence.

blessings,

"I don't see anywhere in the Bible that it says "Don't smoke!" or "Don't fill yourself with trans fats," etc."

Then they're not sins.

"Utterly wrong, for employing effective artificial methods changes the future for a whole nation. By changing the population growth exponential coefficient, one can see a whole society wiped out."

That's deep, profound pessimism, but not reality.

"Just on the United States, our Old Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund cannot support itself because the base of wage-earning workers has been so diminished by birth control/abortion (they are the same) that it will topple when baby-boomers are busted."

I see... the purpose of people is slaves. BTW, I thought a trust fund was a fund with actual money in it. Aren't you talking about the ponzi scheme.

Birth control and abortion are not the same and a petri dish full of embryos in a fertility clinic is not a pool of people.

"That at the Name of Jesus every knee should bow, ...and things under the earth

The turtles too? Won't the Earth fall right off if they do?

"God has already set his timing on this. It is called "the menstrual cycle." In his plan, there is a time commanded to abstain from intimate relationships. There is a time when normal consensual sharing is that of mutual judgment and preference. A scrutiny of Leviticus can get you starten on the "yes/no" factor. On "when/maybe" is up to you, deciding your responsibility with common sense."

Free will and reason are gifts from God and are incopatible with dictates from Leviticus and the imaginations and conclusions of the illogical and ignorant. Producing slaves and subjects for one's own gratification is evil, as is interfereing with other folks relationships, intimate, or otherwise.

The Church gave the world the Bible. It makes sense.

No, it does not make sense to me. The sense given by your reference is not the sense of its interpretation, IMHO. Here is how mankind was given The Word:

"God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; ... " (Heb. 1:1-2)

"And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (2 Pet. 1:18-21).

At that time, the NT holy men wrote the components of the portion of the Bible that sums up the God-breathed Articles of The Faith. There was then no universal visible Church. There were only local, independent, nondenominastional, Christ-serving autonomous churches; visible representations of His Body, to whom portions of His Word were sent and duplicated, and interchanged. God and His Holy men gave these churches the Bible. The peripatetic missionary evangelists helped move them to 17th John unity.

So there was no material, visible overweening "Church" to "give" the Bible. The act of The God in special revelation of the hrema was to men, each of whom documented his own portion, and sent it round. Early teaching was largely by exhortation, by the spoken word, believed in by hearers.

"For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe. For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: ..." (1 Thess. 2:13-14)(The written confirmation followed the oral teaching--men giving the Word to the churches)

Thus, regarding Paul's doctrine in 1 Timothy 3:16, you will note, looking at the Koine, the grammar is that oikos=house, ekklesia=assembly, stulos=pillar, and hedrayoma=basis are anarthrous (not particularized); and alaytheia is articular (making it pointedly uniquely specific). The sense, then, of Paul's observation to Timothy is,

"... know how to behave thyself in God's house, which is Living God's assembly, The Truth's pillar and basis."
--(a more precise translation as being a little more of what a first or secondnd believer would understand Paul writing to Timothy).

That is to say, a local church, standing on The Truth, exuding truth in word and deed, was to be The Living God's local operations center, and Timothy should conduct himself there with their function in mind. Of course, the local church ought to preach The Word (hrema) to the locality, and support godly behavior of its constituents in the community among the worldlings.

This does not at all say that some invisible catholic church was to be the author or distributor of the Bible. That role seems as if one would be allegorizing a theory into an entity which had not yet appeared!

While settlement of the Canonicity of the NT in later councils of local churches is related, and could be said to have compiled the canon for common use, do please observe a little different sense than you seem to want from the Timothy passage.

Furthermore, the writing of the body of the text--being closed with the death of The Beloved John--God's written revelation to the world was comprehensive (though not exhaustive), and completely sufficed as the font of instruction for Christian belief and practice. It was closed, and it was perfect (1 Cor. 13:10). Nothing was to be added or taken away, or changed: one cannot improve perfection. And since the common language was Koine Greek, there was generally no translation or interpretation needed. The Bible portions, read as written, were mysteries revealed in practical literal or obvious figurative-literal 1st-century language, as if one was writing a letter to one's family from afar. The God was not having the writers creating mysteries wrapped up in metaphors wound into impenetrable allegories that needed a philosopher to unwind them before a pragmatic dull-witted public.

The Apostolic Fathers (Timothy, Crispus, Justin the Martyr, etc.) really had nothing more to say, no task other than to preach The Word, to repeat faithfully and leave unchanged the body of revelation entrusted to them. Their task was simply to conduct themselves identically to the way the Apostles exemplified Christ's ordinances, in: (1) observing The Remembrance Supper, employing the tokens of His Passion; (2) loving one another with His self-denial care; (3) enlisting disciples and inducting regenerated ones into eternal service, through a symbolic public ritual immersion with verbal witnessing affirmation; and (4) assembling for public instruction to receive, honor, observe, obey, and preserve with watchful security all of Christ's commandments without alteration.

Unfortunately, deviancy began almost immediately. Improving, or rather improvising on the message, with widely-accepted philosophical amendments, seemed to take hold as a clerical occupation. A lot of influence-peddling, and resistance to it, was taking place because of these changes. Control issues blossomed that altered the whole face of evangelism. But that is another whole topic to which I have already partially responded earlier, perhaps continue later.

This is why I am not interested in any embroidery of the gospel declared by Paul, Peter, James, and Jude, and of the Gospelleers. If what the Patristics or later clerics have to say is not 100 per cent in agreement with Paul, let them be accursed (2 Cor. 11:3,4; Gal. 1:8)

No, There is a deep chasm between The Bible-based Faith and hermeneutic to which I subscribe; as compared to the "Church" of Traditionalistic faith resting on errant, fallible, Platonic-leaning Patristics and their additions, amendments, and deletions from the Word; a hermenuetic of allegorizing whole swatches of otherwise intelligible instructions, to fit their pet theories; and to which the revealed Scriptures of The God take a second place; which treatment corresponds to what you've described. These two approaches cannot be harmonized.

Let us place His Word, personified in the Lord Jesus Christ, above all!: As the Great Psalmist of God's Heart extols:

A Psalm of David.
"I will praise Thee with my whole heart: before the gods will I sing praise unto Thee. I will worship toward Thy Holy Temple, and praise Thy Name for Thy lovingkindness and for Thy Truth: for Thou hast magnified Thy Word above all Thy Name.
In the day when I cried thou answeredst me, and strengthenedst me with strength in my soul. All the kings of the earth shall praise thee, O LORD, when they hear the Words of Thy mouth" (Ps. 138:1-4)

For the sake of The Faith ...

Reprovingly, but with care and respect --

"So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate.

Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth" (Rev. 2:15-16)

(more later, appreciate your patience)

The Church gave the world the Bible. It makes sense.

“No, it does not make sense to me. The sense given by your reference is not the sense of its interpretation, IMHO. Here is how mankind was given The Word:

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; ... “ (Heb. 1:1-2)...

There was then no universal visible Church. There were only local, independent, nondenominastional, Christ-serving autonomous churches; visible representations of His Body, to whom portions of His Word were sent and duplicated, and interchanged. God and His Holy men gave these churches the Bible. The peripatetic missionary evangelists helped move them to 17th John unity.”...

~ ~ ~

Well yes, the Apostles first preached, then, they wrote down much of Christ’s teachings but not everything. You have to accept both, the oral too not just the written Word.

You keep saying there was no visible or “universal visible
Church.” Yes there was, Christianity spread like wild fire
around the world and to this day. That’s why St. Ignatius used the word Catholic, it means universal. There was a hierarchy, St. Ignatius is the 3rd Bishop of Antioch. The Church is Sacramental, “break bread” or “breaking of the bread” is the earliest Church reference to the most Holy Eucharist. Eucharist means giving thanks. Paul says it.

“Paul uses a Greek form of the word eucharistia in 1 Cor 11:24 when he describes how the Lord’s Supper was celebrated:

And when he had given thanks (Greek: eucharistésas or “eucharisted”), he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me” (1 Cor 11:24).”

And a few verses later, 1 Cor 11:29 Paul states, if you
do not discern it is the “body” of Our Lord, you bring
judgment on yourself.

Somebody had to decide which of the original writings were divinely inspired, Pope Damasus did, He had the God given authority. The Bible didn’t drop complete from Heaven.

Our Lord wants you and all Christians to believe in the
Holy Eucharist. You can change, you’re so smart.

I like your style of writing imardmd1, a couple of words you’ve used I had to look up their meaning (stupida). Be happy, you have the gift to write.

Start reading the footnotes in the Douay-Rheims, they will
help you. http://www.drbo.org I can’t speak Latin, a wonderful thing that we have the English translation of the first Bible, the Latin Vulgate. My dear mother could speak Latin. She never had difficulty with spelling, this was before spell check.

http://www.drbo.org

stpio

(I just felt I wanted to give an opinion -- the following response is just thoughts I have gathered from other sources, except for Bible quotations and explanation. None of this is attributed, just cribbed -- no original research on historicity, but the sources sre pretty rliable. It's way overdone, but I think a lot of it is right -- it's not careless or fibbing. But I'm very taken by authentic personal participation in The Remembrance):

You keep saying there was no visible or “universal visible Church.” Yes there was, Christianity spread like wild fire around the world ...

Because Koine was the common language everywhere in the reach of Alexander's empire -- and the first evangelists and churches were Spirit-blessed in s sin-sated world.

and to this day. That’s why St. Ignatius used the word Catholic, it means universal.

Ignatius did not use the word Catholic as you do. He used the word catholic because he was caught up in Plato's system of pantheistic unification and sought to establish a control structure superseding the autonomy of the local churches, supposedly to suppress false doctrine. Many small churches bridled at the unscripturality. They were not heretics, but held to the principle that each localized assembly was a Body of The Christ. Given more power, the seekers of hegemony coveted a wider authority and persecuted the truth-keepers to death, to establish their inflexibility.

This is where the religious worldlings as angels of light started winnowing out the Biblical baptizing immersionists from the statist-paedobaptists to stamp them out. That is what has continued throughout the history of Christendom. Still here, even though the really true believers are holding the door open, not viciously striking back. The God will judge.

There was a hierarchy, St. Ignatius is the 3rd Bishop of Antioch.

Of course. He is one of the authors of the overarching rule of Nikolaitanism -- the establishment of a clerical class ruling (nikaw=subdue) the ordinary "unordained" "lay" people (laioi) by influence and carnal means. Ignatius is no more saint than the least of any other precious one of Christ (all regenerated believers accepted by The Christ are saints=hagioi), and perhaps much less so if the examination of his heart by The Lord proves him to be unregenerate, as his theology suggests.

The Church is Sacramental, ...

The Roman Church including all its spinoffs of Orthodoxen, Copts, and Protestant-reformers are Sacramental-resacrificers. The truly persistent followers of The Christ had all their sacrifices finished at the Cross, where lawful necessity of sin-payment in the body of flesh was offered ephapax=once-for-all-time-and-eternity and finished -- "Tetelestai!" --the product, the Blood in which is The Absolute Life, lain upon the real Mercyseat=hilasterion of the Holiest by our Eternal High Priest, to obtain reconciliation with The Father, for all those whose child-like trust resides in submission to the Anointed but Crucified One, appointed from the foundation of the kosmos to be executed, with prejudice, for them. This is what The Remembrance is about, you people!. The Incorruptible coin of Heaven, the everbright bearer of Absolute Life, Our Redeemers Incomparable Riches, His Blood, will never move, not a smidgin, from the Majestic, Radiant Splendor of the Immediate Presence of The Eternal God and Father of Jesus Christ, the Lord of us.

This happened once and was, to The God, so perfect and completely accomplished throughout His vented fiercely violent and satiated Wrath, that it never need be repeated, ever.

"Then said he, Lo, I come to do Thy Will, O God. He taketh away the first (will=testament referent), that He may establish the second (Will). By the which Will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once_for_all (=ephapax).
And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till His enemies be made His footstool" (Heb. 10:9-14)

The New Covenant and Restored Relationship established! The Old Unrealizable Covenant with sinners) banished! Done! And a new Way to the Feet of The Father made clear! We have a Man in The Heaven!

"Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the Blood of Jesus, By a new and living way, which He hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, His flesh;

And having High Priest over the house of God; Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

Let us hold fast the confession(=homologia) of ~~our~~ Faith without wavering; (for He is faithful that promised;) And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

"... the “break bread” or “breaking of the bread” is the earliest Church reference to the most Holy Eucharist. Eucharist means giving thanks. Paul says it.

“Paul uses a Greek form of the word eucharistia in 1 Cor 11:24 when he describes how the Lord’s Supper was celebrated: And when he had given thanks (Greek: eucharistésas or “eucharisted”), he broke it, and said,"<.i>

"...he took bread, and giving-thanks (=eucharisting, aorist active participle) broke (aorist active indicative, 3rd singular), and uttered:"

“This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me” (1 Cor 11:24).”

"...This do for the commemoration of me" (DRB). A simpler, easier, literal equivalency concept:

" ...This do to remind you of me." (Let's not get way too holy here. It is a moment of remembrance of all that he as done for us. And I suspect the tearing of the leavened bread (Galileans celebrated Passover one day before the orthodox Jews, thus bread baken and with leaven) is a preview of the tearing, ripping, cutting, piercing, bruising, abrading by men and burning by The God.

And a few verses later, 1 Cor 11:29 Paul states, if you do not discern it is the “body” of Our Lord, you bring judgment on yourself.

And here is where I think a very great misinterpretation is made by many. In these verses, examining oneself before The God for any last tinge of unconfessed sin (Jn. 1:9) else one is reentering guiltiness of the presence of sin for which The God's wrath was wreaked on the sin already borne in His body on the Tree and paid for . Thus the partaker is unworthily faking a repentant sorrow.

But there is a deeper and more terrifying factor -- of not discerning--not the tokens of His Passion--but the assembled visible local Body of The Christ-King, the congregated assembly of regenerated believer-disciple-priests, tainted by one's unconfessed and abandoned sin, so the unity and acceptability of the whole church is recognized by The Vengeful God and rejected.

Have you not heard of Achan, whose unconfessed sin tainted the whole Church of Israel after Jericho? (Jud. 7:1-26, 22:20)

This is not of the nature of a "victimless crime" -- unconfessed sin brings judgment and wrath upon the whole church! But what is the expiation? for not trusting the sinbearing capability of The Crucified One? The perpetrateor may be condemned. Remember Ananias and Sapphira.

So, the deep spiritual significance to which Paul refers is not the question of "the Real Presence" in the Eucharist -- it is the spiritual defiance of the obstinate sinner in the presence of the Lord's Body, the Assembly, the Called-out Ones!

It might be quite instructive, if one could bring themselves to it, to observe the breaking of The Bread as commonly practiced, every Lord's Day, by a faithful assembly (typically Plymouth/Darby-leaning) of immersionist brethren assembled as in the beginning New Testament Jerusalem church fashion. There will be found a Spirit-led, heart-breaking review of the purpose for The Remembering, a detailed recollection of the submission of the Son of the Man in humble reverence -- a witness of subservience to The Master.

(Respectfully, but not yet humbly enough, I guess --)

Start reading the footnotes in the Douay-Rheims, they will help you. http://www.drbo.org I can’t speak Latin, a wonderful thing that we have the English translation of the first Bible, the Latin Vulgate. My dear mother could speak Latin. She never had difficulty with spelling, this was before spell check.

Begging your pardon, but the Vulgate is not the first Bible. By Jerome, it is a reasonably fair translation of the Hebrew/Aramaic Tanach and Koine Greek NT into Roman. The DRB is a translation into English, a second-hand warmed-over massage of the Latin, brought into being as a response to the extremely popular and ubiquitous success of an Anglican version from copies of the autographs, by the Crown of England.

This is what it took to get the super-resistant minions of the Bishop of Rome to answer the needs to communicate The Word in English culture's vernacular.

Just a minor but significant correction --

William Tyndall paid his life for translating the first complete printed English New Testament, as well as much of the Old Testament -- a precursor of the KJV/AV (about 85% of its NT, and about 75$ of the OT). The KJV, always before my eyes, is a translation of the first water. But it is far closer to the DRB than, say, the NIV or TEV.

Tyndall's NT and those of the Geneva, the Bishop's, and the AV Bibles, were largely based on the Greek compilation of MSS by Desiderius Erasmus, a great Catholic scholar rejected by his Church, for which content the term "Textus Receptus" (Received Text) was coined. His Romanist body found a home in Basel's Protestant cemetery. He was a remarkable warrior for both religious tolerance and doctrinal accuracy

I would also point out to you to a companion to the KJV, A Precise Translation -- The Gospels freely available from The Happy Heralds, Inc. It is a very good application of Greek grammar in center-column-noted syntax features, and has both a Translation Glossary of grammatical terms, as well as a Chronological Harmony of the Gospels.

The perigrinations of Jesus in his ministry is very detailed, and leads any time span from Gospel to Gospel, with almost minute-by-minute progress in His last hours before final Ascension.

Did you know that Peter's denials were in two separate time intervals, in groups of three each, for six denials? That is the detail to which the author's precision conforms. The Chronology is embedded throughout the pages, with every page dated in the heading.

"A Precise Translation" is slated to come out as a full New Testament in the near future. The translation is completed, but the issue format for printing is still in process.

So long for now --

stpio: Start reading the footnotes in the Douay-Rheims, they will help you. http://www.drbo.org I can’t speak Latin, a wonderful thing that we have the English translation of the first Bible, the Latin Vulgate. My dear mother could speak Latin. She never had difficulty with spelling, this was before spell check.

“Begging your pardon, but the Vulgate is NOT THE FIRST BIBLE. By Jerome, it is a reasonably fair translation of the Hebrew/Aramaic Tanach and Koine Greek NT into Roman. The DRB is a translation into English, a SECOND-HAND warmed-over massage of the Latin, brought into being as a response to the extremely popular and ubiquitous success of an Anglican version from copies of the autographs, by the CROWN OF ENGLAND...

Just a minor but significant correction —

WILLIAM TYNDALL paid his life for translating the first complete printed English New Testament, as well as much of the Old Testament — a precursor of the KJV/AV (about 85% of its NT, and about 75$ of the OT). The KJV, always before my eyes, is a translation of the first water. But it is FAR CLOSER to the DRB than, say, the NIV or TEV”....

~ ~ ~

It’s impossible to reject all of Christian history and blinded to reject most of it.

“the Vulgate is not the first bible”...”second-hand”...

Name the first “Bible” then, state the first Bible, complete with the OT and NT books? Obvious, before Christianity came to be, there is the the OT Canon, God’s written revelation of the Old Covenant. Jesus spoke Aramaic, most of the original New Covenant writings were in Greek. It’s history, the divinely inspired original writings were first translated by someone.

The Vulgate is the Latin (the common language of time) translation of the original Hebrew and Greek writings translated by St. Jerome.

Remember, before the Latin Vulgate, someone, had to determine which of the original writings were divinely inspired. Who did this, William Tyndall, Martin Luther or another “reformer” who lived in the 16th century? No, by God’s authority given to him, the Holy Father decided, Pope Damasus determined the Canon in 382 A.D.

You accept Damasus’ choices for the NT and Luther’s OT choices, his mistaken tossing out of 7 books, rejecting the correct Jewish Canon, the Alexandrian Canon.

The denial of where the Bible came from (while at the same time, non-Catholic Christian’s only authority) is a mistake, you all go away from the Truth at the start.

Who notices you said “far closer”, how is that? The
Douay-Rheims Bible is a word for word translation of the 4th
century Latin Vulgate. I want to read in English, the closest to Our Lord’s words not changed heretical translations centuries later.

Be real, the “Crown of England” was an evil man who went against the Church because he wanted her approval to commit scandal, grave mortal sin. And his other scandal, King James was a sodomite. His group translated their version of the Bible, making changes to fit the new Protestant heresies. Why our discussions goes on and on, the differences are there for everyone to see.

Tyndall and his father were anti-Catholics too. His version of the Bible you praise, not good, the Bible is a Catholic book.

stpio: And a few verses later, 1 Cor 11:29 Paul states, if you do not discern it is the “body” of Our Lord, you bring judgment on yourself.

“And here is where I think a very great misinterpretation is made by many. In these verses, examining oneself before The God for any last tinge of unconfessed sin (Jn. 1:9) else one is reentering guiltiness of the presence of sin for which The God’s wrath was wreaked on the sin already borne in His body on the Tree and paid for . Thus the partaker is unworthily faking a repentant sorrow.

But there is a deeper and more terrifying factor — of not discerning—not the tokens of His Passion—but the assembled visible local Body of The Christ-King, the congregated assembly of regenerated believer-disciple-priests, tainted by one’s unconfessed and abandoned sin, so the unity and acceptability of the whole church is recognized by The Vengeful God and rejected.”

~ ~ ~

I know you care and I do too.

My comments are pretty simple, straight forward, you can see most of them you commented are one sentence. It’s so difficult for me to reply now in rebuttal to all you posted. It would take a long time. I am not being unkind, your last paragraph, I think is about the end times and Christ uniting the faithful or maybe you mean another time of God ahead, the Final Judgment?

Oops, now I shall make it long....

I’ll reply to two of your comments -see above-. The false, mistaken -Jesus did all- no need of Confession (John 20:23), all our sins are covered by His death on the Cross- is soooo wrong! Our mortal sins aren’t “already”..”paid for” by Our Lord’s suffering death on the Cross. Jesus OPENED Heaven in dying on the Cross. Mankind’s...our justification is a life long process. When you commit a mortal sin, Jesus established a way to gain back God’s presence in your soul, Confession.

Non-Catholic Christians reject the Sacrament of Confession. You all, right now, must from the heart, with true contrition, repent and confess your mortal sins to God personally.

Do this NOW to prepare for the Great Warning. Examine your life, go through the 10 Commandments if it’s been a long time. A help, all the sexual sins are mortal sin, less one maybe. It’s prophesied, you will not feel the pain of seeing CONFESSED sins during your life review in the divine gift of the Great Warning, also called the “awakening” as Protestants hear it in prophecy.

I’ll say it again because it’s important. imardmd1, if you
could ACCEPT the Eucharist, desire to receive the Eucharist,
what is ahead, coming soon, well, you will be prepared.
I think you are “open”, you understand and accept the Truth on Contraception.

You won’t be deceived by greater evil coming, evil’s plan to reject the Eucharist. The persecution of the faith is going to get worse and if you’re on the anti-Christ’s side and his followers, mistakenly, you will be confirmed in your rejection of Catholicism.

The other, St. Paul is NOT talking about the faithful, the Church in 1 Cor 11:29. Look at 11-26-29. It’s not as you say the “assembly.” He is speaking about the most Holy Eucharist, the body and blood of Our Lord. Jesus is fully present there. Replace the word “body” with Church or assembly, neither make any sense.

[26] For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. [27] Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the ASSEMBLY and of the blood of the Lord. [28] But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. [29] For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the CHURCH of the Lord.

Another day, another message from Heaven. God is so loving.
Let us keep talking, discussing our differences.

Here you go, a message about a coming “illumination.” The
Great Warning is often referred to as the “illumination
of conscience.” Today, a message to Protestant Debra
Lowe.

Finally, finally...we are all going to believe the same,
Jesus, His heart’s desire and prayer to the Father. Catholics must shout out the Truth now as the message says and notice the words to follow, it’s still going to be a free will choice after experiencing the “illumination”
of conscience.

+ + +

message to Debra Lowe

7/6/12

The Spirit of the Lord says:

Great ILLUMINATIONS will come to all who have been crying to Me to see more clearly. You will be made aware of the great depth of My love and the power you wield as you walk in it. My love is not a “touchy feely” thing, it is all that I move in. My love creates, fulfills, carries, and upholds all. This day that you woke up in was because of My love for all. A new day for My great new way to be paved and sealed for you. Walk in the new light that you have now. Even as others seem to be diving deeper into the darkness of this world, for the wisdom that this world thought most precious has left them empty and confused. All that they have treasured and highly esteemed has fallen from its height and disillusioned them. Many have placed their trust in their own wisdom and now that has failed or is rapidly declining. Still many wander from place to place, warring in their soul, tormented by the deep darkness from within.

YOU, MY OWN PREVIOUS ENLIGHTENED ONES MUST NOT BE AFRAID TO SPEAK LIFE AND TRUTH INTO THEIR LIVES. My Word will dispel the darkness of mind and heart, for all that desire to be free. I WILL NOT FORCE DELIVERANCE. Your lighted path and ILLUMINED thinking will be a life preserver to those who are drowning and to those who are weary from trying to stay afloat by their own strength. But be aware that for those who love their darkness, you will be scorned and lightly esteemed. Yet I will see to it that you will never be ashamed as you keep walking in the light, it will get brighter and brighter until you outshine the confines of this world. Your righteousness will be much more than this world can endure. Your glory and beauty will be just right for the Kingdom. So understand that this is the beginning of the end, just as John was sent to a generation that was in the same spiritual condition as this one, he was to go before the Lord and announce His arrival. You have been prepared for this time to be like John, to herald the arrival once again. Prepare the way! For all whose hearts hunger and thirst for MORE of Me, they will be filled. Those who are filthy and live for their own sensual pleasures, they will become more hardened. I have said to you that there will be a great separation, the great divide is here. LIVE WHOLLY FOR ME AND YOU WILL MOVE OVER INTO THE ARENA WHERE ILLUMINATION WILL CAUSE YOU TO WALK IN A GREATER DIMENSION OF AUTHORITY AND POWER. Signs and wonders and demonstrations of the Holy Spirit will follow you, my enlightened ones.

http://ft111.com/eagles.htm

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.