Posted on 06/19/2015 12:01:57 PM PDT by RnMomof7
Your comment: “God would not require Christians to take part in something as widespread as this that has an “accident” involved. “
How do you know? Just another personal protestor. Do you ever use the dictionary to determine the meaning of words? (”a nonessential property or quality of an entity or circumstance”)
Allow yourself to love God with your whole heart, mind and soul. God wants to you to receive His Body and Blood. Why do want to fight God’s will?
I can almost hear you spittling the following as you read #509, if you read it all: “He’s denying even the remembrance!” No, I too break bread in remembrance of His Body upon T he Cross for my Deliverance from the Egypt of affliction in sin. I too drink a sip of wine in REMEMBRANCE of the actual blood Christ spread upon the Mercy Seat on my behalf. But I would be performing a sacrilege to believe that the bread is the literal body and the wine the literal blood. The Remembrance is so sacred, so humbling, I will not ignore catholicism twisting it into something profane, something sacrilegious.
Scripture that tells us any action of man earns grace ??
We celebrate Mass everyday as a reminder of His sacrifice on the cross for our salvation
No Romans re-sacrifice their christ daily to forgive their sin ..
The church says it is the "self same sacrifice." / the "unbloody sacrifice" not a "remembrance .
Ummmmm seems to me that faith is listed as a gift of the Holy Spirit ..Ephesians 2:8–9 Embed 8 For by grace you have been saved athrough faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
And the Mormons believe they can baptize the dead into heaven ..
And the JWs believe only 177,000 will get to heaven ...
Believing is not the measure of truth
AMEN
When you have the ONE AND ONLY TRUE RELIGION out comes condescending pompous puffed up subtle comments to show how superior your religion is.
Modern day phariseees are due the same admonitions the original worshiperers of religion (instead of God) received.
Jesus didn’t create a new religion he created the possibility of having a personal relationship with him and God the Father
Amen ... born from above into His Family. Indwelt by His Life source to be raised up in the Way that we should go.
just another pompous and condescending comment with a personal attack included
I will not throw many more pearls in your direction
So?
There is ZERO proof of 'who' performed them.
I seem to recall that Pharaoh had a lot of 'miracles' in his court...
So you don’t believe the words of Jesus and do not have faith in what Jesus told us.
There's yer Catholic 'mental gymnastics ' on display!
Coming up with a conclusion like this from what was typed!
How many Catholic scholars voted AGAINST including James in the bible?
Then why post SO much of it?
Thank you; but I'll do it when I please.
You; a more mature person; can merely ignore me.
YOU could care less? Please. Its the same little group of Catholic bashers who post these articles and you always manage to stumble onto to them to give your 2 cents.
I was quite precise in what I posted.
But really; Catholic Bashers?
What we all see here is a much of FR Catholics who do NOT like Pope Francis because of his politics and are quite vocal about it!
I merely like to goad the players into more vigorous action!
This didn't take long!
I guess your WORD is not to be taken LITERALLY.
May I suggest some passion flower tea?
How does one explain that there is only one Gospel message (grace through faith), even while the early Church was administered out of the temple in Jerusalem for almost two decades?
There is a choice to be made. Either for nearly two decades the early Church operated out of the temple and the disciples kept the Law, and that is how they kept from being driven out by the other sects of Jews or being stoned to death. Or the other choice is to believe that the early Church was allowed to preach against keeping the Law in the temple for nearly two decades and the other Jewish sects just ignored them. The second choice is completely unrealistic and unbelievable.
I know there is only one Gospel message of grace without Law. But the disciples were not clear about how the Church would work in the first two decades. Christ taught keeping the Law, because He was under the Law and so were the disciples. The disciples knew nothing else at the time of His crucifixion and resurrection. Christ never told them to stop keeping the Law. That was to come later. They were all Jews who ran the Church out of the temple in Jerusalem. They could never have done that if they were not keeping the Law (did you miss where I said, "despite that this directly contradicts the gospel" in my earlier post). Christianity began as a sect of Judaism - hardly surprising given the circumstances.
From my book, MetaChristianity - Unlocking Dispensation Bible Mysteries:
Quote===>
Ac.2.5 Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven.
On the day of Pentecost 3000 Jews "from every nation under heaven" (Ac.2.41) were converted and subsequently went home to their own countries with little or no teaching about their new religion. They would not even know it was a new religion. They were waiting for a Jewish Messiah and He had now come and it was promised He would return. As far as they were concerned their conversion was just one more step in being a Jew. Why would they think otherwise? They would not have been warned that the Law was abolished on the cross for saints (the eleven apostles did not even understand this), and that the Gentiles would also be included in this new religion (again, the eleven did not understand this either), so naturally they would continue to keep the Law along with their newfound faith in Christ, and they would also continue to see themselves as separate from the Gentiles. This point cannot be over stressed - understand this: The early Church was barely distinguishable from other Jewish sects except for the upholding of Christ as messiah. The early disciples focused their religion in Jerusalem at the temple (Ac.2.46, Ac.5.12, Ac.5.21) and would have upheld the Law as any Law abiding Jews would. Indeed, had they not upheld the Law, but instead denounced it as did Paul later, they would have been persecuted as heretics. This new sect would have ended right there. Christ would have died for nothing. There would have been no one to preach the good news. Indeed, Peter and John were jailed for preaching "Jesus and the resurrection of the dead" (Ac.4.2, Ac.5.17-18, Ac.6.8-7.60), not for breaking the Law and advocating against keeping it. They still saw themselves as Law abiding Jews and expected their disciples to do the same. No wonder it took almost two decades to establish the gospel message without the contamination of the Law (and even then the Law continued to creep back into the practice of the early Church). The council of Ac.15 was not the end of the battle against the Law, but the beginning. Indeed, even as late as the latter part of Acts the Church was seen as nothing more than a "sect" of Judaism (Ac.24.5,14 Ac.28.22), and the Jerusalem Christians are described as still being zealous for the Law. It is a testament to Paul's perseverance and God's work through him and others that the one and only "gospel of God's grace" has prevailed (mostly). Just as it took decades (forty years in the desert) for the Jews to accept the LORD as their God after He brought them out of Egypt , it also took decades for Judaism to be removed from the early Church.
<===/Quote
It was in Ac.15 that the yoke of the Law was finally separated from the early Church, regardless of what they were preaching about the Gospel beforehand. Peter had believed for quite a while that the Law should be abandoned, and it was his testimony that persuaded the council to formally act.
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.