Posted on 06/21/2006 5:15:34 AM PDT by MountainMenace
COLUMBUS, OHIO (6/20/06)-The House of Deputies of the 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church today overwhelmingly refused to even consider a resolution that affirmed Jesus Christ as the "only name by which any person may be saved."
(Excerpt) Read more at virtueonline.org ...
Isn't it fascinating that people who are all for literal interpretations of Scripture have a hard time taking these parts literally?
You assume that He could not have been linking the two?
YES!
The words "This is my body" mean something different than "This symbolicly represents my body."
Again, symbolism, Jesus didn't become a gate either. Scripture helps us interpret scripture, we see the context of words and symbols that are used and they are consistent.
Since Jesus is the Bread of Life, I assume you know it to be a reference about salvation and not a meal.
In your interpretation, we stretch the meaning and recieve Jesus through a peice of bread that we have to depend on a priest to convert for us, instead of believing in our minds, where the "believing" part is performed as opposed to our stomachs.
Similar to the forgiveness for sins through a priest, both being dependent on the church instead of going directly to God.
None of this is even hinted at in scripture. It's a house of cards. Why wouldn't we receive Jesus through believing in our hearts and minds, instead of being dependant on some ceremony that is not clearly defined in the Bible ? Don't you think Jesus would have spelled this out ?
For God so Loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whoever believes in him, shall not perish, but have eternal life.
There are a million references to faith and believing and none about gaining salvation through a peice of bread.
I'll pray for you ! Please attend a Bible study
*Chuckle* The Catholic Church is a 2,000 year old Bible study. You might want to check out some of it's "notes" in the Catechism.
YES!
So there's no link between the bread and wine taken at the Last Supper and the Crucifixion? That's an interesting claim.
Again, symbolism, Jesus didn't become a gate either. Scripture helps us interpret scripture, we see the context of words and symbols that are used and they are consistent.
Who told you this and what assurances do you have that they are telling you the right interpretation?
In your interpretation, we stretch the meaning and recieve Jesus through a peice of bread that we have to depend on a priest to convert for us, instead of believing in our minds, where the "believing" part is performed as opposed to our stomachs.
LOL. It isn't our stomachs that do the job for us. It takes a tremendous amount of faith to partake in the Eucharist and St. Paul warns people who do not have faith, who can not "discern the Body and Blood" to not drink a curse upon themselves.
You're quite ill-informed if you think we think it's a magic food that only the stomach interacts with.
SD
So do they still consider themselves a Christian denomination? If Scripture is a lie, including the words attributed to Christ himself, what is their faith, and what do they base it on?
BUMPping
Or a social club.
How can you be so blind that you will not see that it is spelled out word for word in the Gospel according to John? You deny the plain meaning of the words, and then complain that it doesn't spell it out for you. It's as if you don't like what it says so you want it to be said some other way, but there is only one way. You must EAT HIS FLESH and DRINK HIS BLOOD or you have no part in him.
What is fascinating is the spiritual slippage of the ECUSA, PCUSA and the SBC with its election of a "moderate" President and their movement towards each other without the uniting work of the Holy Spirit. Each has aposticized, some deeper than the other but all are on the slippery slope to irrelevance. One of the coups of the Anti-christ is his allowing the church to become universal and inclusive in its doctrine, making it easy for him to subsume it into his one world government. We will wait and see what the United Methodists and the American Baptists do, but I fear, the pressure will be too great for them to compromise.
Finally! A Christian Church that does not follow Christ! Just what the world needs...
Has the SBC done something wrong?
The ECUSA & the PCUSA are clearly on the wrong track. The Methodists are barely keeping their heads above water. They are far worse off than the SBC, imho.
BTW, aren't you SBC?
The PepsiColaians are at it again!
SD
"Has the SBC done something wrong?"
They elected a young Pastor as President from the "moderate" wing. He has made some statements that lead one to believe he will try to roll back some of the reforms that Patterson and Rogers have maintained such as inerrancy of scripture.
I am a Conservative Baptist, but graduated from an SBC college and law school and Conservative Baptist Seminary.
No one is denying that the New Testament is Scripture.
What you are suggesting is that when Paul wrote a letter to a particular audience, that what both Paul and the audience meant by the word "Scripture" was not what the Holy Spirit really meant. That only years later would we come to know what was really meant, and that both the sender and receiver of the letter were out of the loop.
SD
Of course. That's why he used an extremely graphic Greek verb for "eat" (trogo, literally "munch", "gnaw") in John 6. He wanted us to know that he was not really talking about eating.
And that's why he said "my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink" ... so we wouldn't take him too seriously.
And that's why, after a number of his followers left him, he said in John 6:73, "Hey, guys, it's just a metaphor, I'm talking symbolically here, don't you get it?"
(That's what John 6:73 says in my Bible; I don't know about yours.)
And that's why Paul in 1 Cor 11 says that if you receive the Eucharist unworthily, you're guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord, because it's not really the Body and Blood of the Lord.
And that's why Ignatius of Antioch, who knew the Apostles personally and ended up as lion food in AD 110 for refusing to denounce Christ, writes to the Christians of Smyrna that it's better not to even speak of those men who deny that the Eucharist is truly the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ, "flesh which was crucified for our salvation" ... because he didn't really believe it ...
Now you can either believe all this ridiculous stuff, or you can just believe Jesus meant what he said. Which is it?
What? These 'piscoplians have gone barmy.
Ain't that the truth? We've had almost as bad a week as the looney libs!
Guess I shouldn't joke about this since I just saw a news report that the Diocese of Ft. Worth (Texas) has just made a formal request to be separated from the ECUSA.
So it begins.
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.