Posted on 10/11/2001 9:39:48 AM PDT 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 |
| Threads 1-50 | Threads 51-100 | Threads 101-150 |
| Thread 151 | Thread 152 | Thread 153 | Thread 154 | Thread 155 | Thread 156 | Thread 157 |
| Thread 158<;/a> | Thread 159 | Thread 160 |
The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles) -- Thread 161
"This is My body," "You must eat My flesh and drink My blood," "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone" are "startingly clear" teachings!?!?!?
What IS clear about "This is My body" is that Jesus was using a metaphor, as He so often did to vividly illustrate truth. Yes, we must appropriate His sacrifice for ourselves as though we were eating His flesh. If one takes this statement ("This is My body") literally, one would have to take all other metaphors He employed literally also. Like "I am the Light of the world," "I am the Door," "I am the Alpha and Omega," "I am the vine," "You are the branches," "My sheep hear My voice," etc. The same is true of "You must eat My flesh and drink My blood." If one reads the context of John 6, it is so easy to see that eating and drinking are synonymous with "coming to Him," which He repeats over and over. It is also a beautiful illustration of how we are united to Him AND nourished and given life by Him. Oh! The analogy is FULL of wonderful morsels of truth!!! To think you literally bite into His flesh, chew Him up, and swallow Him and drink His blood is.......too ludicrous for words.
As for "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone," at first reading, one may see it your way. But if taken in the context of the passage, and especially if taken in context of the whole of Christ's and the apostles' teaching, it becomes clear that it has been misunderstood. This is what we mean when we claim that the Holy Writings interpret themselves...all the parts shed light on each other...All it takes is reading and comparing.
Hardly universal or monolithic. We've been down this path before. Suffice it to say that there was no overwhelming concensus on this subject in the RCC early on.
Prepare for the storm ;)
Besides, if one merely accepts the Aristotelian categories of substance and accidents then it is hardly ludicrous. Now, if we could just find some Aristotelians...
Are you speaking of Titus 2:15, which says, "Say these things. Exhort and correct with all authority. Let no one look down on you"?
Could you re-word this for me? I don't understand.
Here is a question I would like to put to the four of you: What must one do to escape hell and live in heaven forever with the Father?
What are Aristotelian categories of substance and accidents? (Boy, do I feel "iggernut.")
Yeah!! Sic'em, angelo!!!! JHavard has gone too far on this one!!! He OBVIOUSLY does not know MY dogs!!!! 8 D
The first mention of infant baptism comes 180 years or so after the time of Christ? A.D.215 is considered "apostolic times"? (Which apostle lived to be 215 years old?!) I'm sorry, this just doesn't make sense to me. 215 years is a very, very long time to pass without mentioning infant baptism. A lot can get messed up in 215 years. Know what I mean? Just think of our country. It is 225 years old and look at how much IT has changed, not to mention how the Constitution has evolved...
Anyone that believes Baptists’ have been around since Apostolic times lives in a fantasy world and can’t be taken seriously.
Uh, excuse me, mr. blind man. Did you read what you wrote. Did the sorcerers not fraudulently create the same miracle. In your haste to try and disprove my point, you proved it. Nobody said that God's miracles are inferior or that God doesn't have power over the devil. So you're refuting a statement never made. That the false miracles did there job is without question.. the people of Egypt followed the priests and their false miracles from the devil. Mr. Obvious needs to pay some of ya'll a visit.
"To prove to you that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins, I say to you, pick up your sleeping mat and walk."
Nice attempt at deception there:
Matthew 9:2-6 And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee. [3] And, behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, This [man] blasphemeth. [4] And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts? [5] For whether is easier, to say, [Thy] sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk? [6] But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.
He saw that the man with palsey had the faith, so he healed him; but, he used the words "thy sins be forgiven thee". The issue you quote isn't about whether he performed a miracle or not, it's about his choice of words. He could have simply said the usual 'as your faith is, so be it unto you.' But in fulfilling faith, he was going to demonstrate that he can forgive sin, and thus the argument comes.
This shows us, again, healing used to fulfill faith, not to create faith. And his words showed that he could also forgive sin.
..taken on the rebound from a bad score attempt, he turns, sets his foot, the attempt is made...... And it's good. 2 points - all net baby.
Not quite sure how to restate that; but, I'll give it a try. Jesus affected the sacrificial system and how we approach God. If we set that aside mentally, and apply a questioned doctrine to the Jews then we can ask "does it conflict with OT Laws." If the answer is yes, you have a major problem. If it is no, then possibly it is a 'tie or no tie' issue. Jesus didn't do away with the law.
This is what we mean when we claim that the Holy Writings interpret themselves...all the parts shed light on each other...All it takes is reading and comparing.
SD
Thank you. I can occasionally put to words well the essential conflict inherent in many of our faith's mysteries.
Who are "the faithful"?
In the context we were talking about, of the Pope acting in concert with the bishops and the faithful, "the faithful" refers to all serious and committed Catholics.
Are you speaking of Titus 2:15, which says, "Say these things. Exhort and correct with all authority. Let no one look down on you"?
That's the one. If this is not Paul handing on his authority to Titus, then I don't know what it is.
What are Aristotelian categories of substance and accidents?
It is a philosophical construct, a way of thinking about things that was appropriated by Catholic thinkers to describe the change brought about to the bread and wine at a Catholic Mass, changing into truly the Body and Blood of Christ.
In brief, the substance (or essence) is the answer to the question "what is it?" The accidents (or appearance) is the answer to the question "what form does it take?" or "how does it appear?"
Like, for example, water is water. The substance of water does not change, though it may appaear in forms of ice or steam or liquid. The essential "waterness" of the water remains unchanged.
In the Eucharist, the accidents, or outward appearances remain unchanged. The substance of what is on the altar, the "what is it?" changes. What looks like ordinary bread and wine have become (in esssence, or substance) the Glorified Body and Blood of Christ.
This miraculous change in substance is called "transubstantiation."
SD
Oh really?
I guess we have to use Scripture to interpret Scripture in order to puzzle out what he meant when he used metaphors like "I and the Father are one" and "He who has seen me has seen the Father"
Vmatt has a head start on making sense of these particular metaphors.
You have simply started with a fallacy. We use our judgment to determine what is literal and what is figurative. You are saying that we are not allowed to discern, we must accept everything as literal or everything as figurative. I suppose this includes the stories about the Resurrection as well.
As for me, I will use my head to decide which are which. There are no "rules" as you would wish, that force me to accept every metaphor as real.
You, of course, will do the same exact thing, reading some literally and some figuratively. But I won't declare that you must pick on or other mode of thinking, to the exclsusion of the other.
SD
Serious? I think that disqualifies you, SD.
That quotation is a fraud. But what can we expect when you use The Trail of Blood as your history book.
Baptists are not Reformers
Your right, in the truest sense of the word they were not Reformers(neither were Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc... How can people who fractured the Body of Christ be called Reformers is beyond me). But they all, including the Baptists, have their origins in the Reformation[sic].
Pray for John Paul II
Boo!
Gracious, Jim! We were discussing if it were possible or likely that animals may make their way to Heaven, not "animal worship," whatever you mean by that. Can't good God-fearing people wonder if God would like to have his creatures around without being accused of being "animal worshippers?"
We seem to think that God gets so involved in our lives, he even develops our taste, habits, and likes and dislikes. I suppose that as I write, some animal loving monk somewhere is searching diligently for a paradox scripture that can be used to support this nonsense, and before long, it will be doctrine.
How dare we think that God gets involved in our lives! That our affection for cute furry critters might be in the image of God Himself, who loves all of His creation. A pox on all our houses!
God made the animals that he saw could be domesticated, to die much earlier then we do, so we humans couldn’t get overly attached to them, but we did it anyway.
Chapter and verse, please. Does that mean God is OK with us loving parrots and giant tortoises and Blue whales?
I think it is a sign of a sick spoiled and selfish society that will even entertain such a thing, to think that just because we develop an attachment to an animal, that God is suddenly changing his rules to fit us. Soon they will be giving last rites, baptizing and feeding them Eucharist dog chow.
You really are confused. Repeat to yourself "animals are not in a state of sin." Animals are in a state of nature, they do not recognize right or wrong, they never ate the apple, so to speak. There would be no sinful impediment keeping an animal from approaching the throne of God.
If we allow dogs and cats to obtain this status of having a soul, then anyone who has any kind of a pet can do the same, and soon the church will look like a pet store. Remember that with out the Spirit of God, all perish and have no quickening. Mankind is the only one that God has chosen to work with, and animals were put here for our enjoyment and nothing more.
Animals do have souls, we are questioning whether they have immortal souls. There is a difference. The pet is animated by his soul, and this soul and creature are created by God, just like everything else. Bottom line: pets don't need salvation and don't need to go to church or to repent or anything else associated with us humans.
The funny thing is that I don't even know what I believe. I know that it has always been taught that animals don't have immortal souls.
SD
Shun evil. Walk with God. When you sin, repent, ask forgiveness, and do what you can to make it right.
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.