Posted on 03/30/2002 7:53:37 PM PST 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 |
And again. Your insecurity shows. Still following Havoc around eh? lol.
You want the truth? You can't handle the truth.
I don't agree with this analysis completely. Whenever Jesus preached the gospel, it was always the gospel about the coming kingdom of God. The apostles continued to teach the gospel of Christ, but they also began to teach somewhat about the messenger of that gospel, Jesus Christ. The gospel that Paul taught wasn't significantly different than the gospel that the other apostles taught as far as I can see.
In fact, the last verse in Acts confirms that up until the end Paul continued to proclaim the gospel about the coming kingdom of God.
Act 28:30 And Paul remained two whole years in his own rented place, and he welcomed all those coming in to him,
Act 28:31 proclaiming the kingdom of God, and teaching the things concerning the Lord Jesus Christ with all freedom and without hindrance.
The "good news" was not just that Christ had died for the sins of humanity, but that the Messiah had come and would return, establishing His Kingdom and fulfilling the many prophecies of His glorious reign.
Today though, it's decidely different. Most churches today focus almost entirely on forgiveness of sin. This gets interpeted to mean that sinful behavior by Christians is normal and nothing to fret about because the blood of Christ has it covered. And as you said, no behavior modification is needed or expected.
Because He says that His flesh is real food and His Blood is real drink. Over and over. Uses the Greek word for mastication (gnawing).
Why would he say it was real food, if it wasn't real food?
SD
That is indeed the spirit of the age. Forgiveness without repentence. I wonder if we flatter ourselves, though, by imagining that it is just the modern world that acts this way?
SD
Do me a favor, huh? Pretend that you're supposed to treat people the way you would like to be treated. We disagree on interpretation of various things in the Bible. But I don't disparage you that you don't respect the Book.
Why can't we have honest differences without the slurs?
SD
Scripture says it plainly. It's not like it's some new revelation, it's been there for 2000 years. It's just that some don't like it when it's quoted publicly where people are actually made aware of it. It offends the carnal and self-seeking. You can't attack the message so you attack the messenger. Are you a fool in this? Do you not know that attacking the messenger is the same as attacking the message and the one who sent it. Step lightly for your own sake.
I guess we agree. The Church, not the "Big C" Catholic church. (and don't forget the Jews). I know how you guys love that replacement theology.
Nice analysis on this Becky...
That is indeed the spirit of the age. Forgiveness without repentence. I wonder if we flatter ourselves, though, by imagining that it is just the modern world that acts this way?
It's been a problem since biblical times of course, Paul addressed it in Romans:
Rom 6:1 What then shall we say? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?
Rom 6:2 Let it not be! We who died to sin, how shall we still live in it?
Whether or not it's any worse today or not I don't know. It certainly seems worse because there are so many more people sinning and broadcasting their sins to the world...
I have attacked nobody, Havoc. I have been attacked plenty today for daring to ask questions and for pointing out inconsistencies.
Havoc, are you saying that when Jesus said that the flesh profits nothing He also meant His own flesh?
SD
True. The sense of shame that we once had is no longer. When you think of people like Monica's mother encouraging her in her affair with the President, you wonder what happened.
SD
You're right, he did make a way and told us as much as did His Apostles. They said Believe and Confess. That is the route. Your clergy has created itself another route because it doesn't understand salvation. One must partake of the sacrifice before one can worthily partake of communion. That's why I called your interpretation DUMB. If one cannot worthily partake of the sacrifice until one has first partaken worthily of the sacrifice, you have spun yourself into rhetorical Paradox. You're own blasphemous ritual is self defeating because by your own admission, it is impossible for anyone to ever partake worthily. It's bad enough you can't see the truth, worste yet you can't even see the end result of your own false philosophical constructs and how wrong they are. The mighty and blind...
Ok. But that means you'll have to change your presentation as well.
We disagree on interpretation of various things in the Bible. But I don't disparage you that you don't respect the Book.
Its not just a matter of different interpretation when you dismiss out of hand an historical element in the Bible.
Why can't we have honest differences without the slurs?
Not a slur if it's a fact. Is the historical account of the Noadic flood confirmed in the New Testament or not?
He also said you have to eat his flesh and drink his blood. Why you approve of some verses and discount others is beyond me. Again, where in Scripture is the idea that "Spirit and life" means a metaphor?
Your clergy has created itself another route because it doesn't understand salvation. One must partake of the sacrifice before one can worthily partake of communion. That's why I called your interpretation DUMB. If one cannot worthily partake of the sacrifice until one has first partaken worthily of the sacrifice, you have spun yourself into rhetorical Paradox. You're own blasphemous ritual is self defeating because by your own admission, it is impossible for anyone to ever partake worthily. It's bad enough you can't see the truth, worste yet you can't even see the end result of your own false philosophical constructs and how wrong they are. The mighty and blind...
The things you don't understand about Catholicism could fill a book. There are other sacraments, including one called "Confession." Duh. They draw their power from the Sacrifice and they prepare us to partake of that Sacrifice. Duh.
There's also Baptism. Duh.
SD
Bull. It isn't about merely believing. Communion is done as a rememberance By those who ARE born again. Not those that merely believe. If you are partaking and are not born again, your action is one of in your heart crucifying the Lord again. It is mocking what happened. If you are born again, you've already believed and confessed and thus partaken in the sacrifice - for without believing and confessing, there is no spiritual rebirth. And the spiritual rebirth is the fruit of accepting and partaking in the sacrifice. Communion doesn't anywhere enter into that picture - nowhere. Communion comes later as a rememberence of what God has done and what He has brought us out of.
That IS</b your interpretation.
Why can't we have honest differences without the slurs?
Not a slur if it's a fact. Is the historical account of the Noadic flood confirmed in the New Testament or not?
I don't think so.
SD
Was the work Jesus did of the flesh or of the Spirit?
Answer that, and I'll answer your question.
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.