Posted on 04/12/2011 7:55:27 AM PDT by bkaycee
Re: My post # 2,298 - - Please watch Part 5 first. Ignore very bad camera work and just listen to Ventura
No, God does not renege. But remember my opening presupposition? Did every Jew who received the sign of circumcision automatically receive the gift? Paul tells us that not all Jews are true Jews. What reason would we think that Baptism is any different?
We believe He instituted His Church with authority as the normal means, part of the form, for these gifts of His - but that is another disagreement and discussion.
Actually, I agree with your statement... as far as it goes.
Thanks for the good discussion.
No matter how they might twist this Metmom...Rome has certainly declared they are eating Christ....as follows:
“It has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread .......into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood........
.....This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation” (Council of Trent [1551]: DS 1642; )
.........And that in partaking of her Eucharist, ........“CHRIST IS CONSUMED”....... the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us.’..........133 (#1323).
(www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm)
I appreciate your reply as well. I disagree with you that grasping the spiritual precludes accepting the physical senses. When I participate in the Communion service, I hold the piece of cracker in my hand and contemplate its feel and also its taste when it is eaten. The same with the tiny cup of juice. I imagine myself there with the disciples on that night with Jesus and imagine their own thoughts as he gave them the secret meanings of those Passover parts. I marvel at how wise and loving our God is to use simple, everyday things - that just about everyone had available to them - to speak of a miraculous event that was to come to pass.
When I partake of these elements I am reminded of the great sacrifice Christ made for me so that I could be redeemed. Each time it is ever more special than the last as I sense my redemption draws ever nearer. I do not wish to denigrate anyone in how they celebrate this ordinance. My only hope is that whenever we partake we remember that this act of love, grace and mercy is already completed. All of our sins have been paid in full - it is finished - and the "breaking of bread" in fellowship with others is done in "Remembrance of me". To partake is to proclaim what has already been done for me and it is my opportunity to praise the Lord for his goodness - for saving me - and to recommit my life to honoring him in all that I do.
I was arguing the opposite. I think I did a really lousy job of it.
I appreciate your thoughts on partaking communion. We do not disagree so much as we misunderstand.
Thanks very much for your reply.
At the last supper Jesus did not change the wine or the bread. If it was important that we understand more than He stated then He would of directed us so. He did not..he said “do this in remberance of me”...not eat me.
Furthermore he said..”it is finished” while on the cross. He paid the price completely and now sits at the right hand of the father. He indwells us as believers so there’s no reaon to do as the man made tradition catholics teach concerning all that hocus pocus....
God came to earth in the person of Christ...since He made man it is of no effort for Him to arrive here in any form He chooses to....He simply fulfilled His Word Himself.
Would be an advancement if Catholics would think likewise search the scripture rather than what comes out of Romes literature, and the Popes, and the multitude of authors they slather their members with..
That's exactly what the Vatican site teaches...and many authors who write about it. But many catholics seem to not understand that is what their church teaches...rather they "spiritulize" the meaning as a means of accepting what otherwise is too bizarre and revolting ot them....as it should be.
D00d. What are you getting bent for?
Your entire line of legalism falls to any biblically literate individual [...]
Is it legalism to desire to follow the commandments of God? What is sin, except for lawlessness? If the law is not the law, then there is no measurement of sin.
There is no Jew or Greek, so it is the same for everyone. Can that remove the law? Or does that bring everyone under the law? That is, no longer from the threat and the curses thereof, which Christ has taken upon Himself, but rather because of the blessings thereof, and those desired because we love YHWH
Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
[...] with one word: Circumcision.
First of all, the circumcision is of Abraham, not of Moses (John 7:22). But in saying that, it is important to note that circumcision was added to Moses in support of a previous covenant. If one will research it, one will find the same thing across all covenants. This supportive interrelationship of covenants is a primary rule in the Tanakh. Nowhere, to my knowledge, does any covenant abrogate the tenets of any other. That is of a necessity, as anything that YHWH has uttered, particularly by His WORD, must be true.
Yet it seems you would have me believe that Jesus, as a prophet and as a rabbi (as those who were His audience would perceive Him), and his disciples after him, are seeking to remove or change what is unchangeable, and upset a continuity which has been present in all of the covenants YHWH has already made. That simply cannot be true. It makes words that YHWH has declared true to be made false.
To the contrary, Yeshua has taught us from his own mouth that we are to keep and teach the law... If we love Him we will keep His commandments. His disciple teaches us, "How do we know we love YHWH? When we walk in His commandments." Among those commandments is the declaration that no one can add or remove anything from the Torah.
As far as the circumcision itself, my first observation is that every Biblical treatise I have found against the circumcision is not about circumcision itself, but rather those who would impose it upon the saved. Analogous to that is the Christian insistence on the need of baptism (the extension of circumcision according to Christian thought)... an imposed baptism is as affected as an imposed circumcision - It is the circumcision of the heart that YHWH is interested in, and it always has been thus. And THAT, FRiend, is straight out of the Torah. The symbolic cutting of flesh has no more efficacy than a symbolic dunking in water does. Otherwise, all who are Israel would be Israel.
This lines up perfectly with Yeshua's message, in that He consistently railed against the Pharisees, and their additions to the Word of YHWH. In ~no case~ can I find even one instance of Christ changing any single thing found within the Torah - *not one*. in every case, He stood upon the Torah and removed the things the Pharisees had added of their own supposed authority. If the circumcision, or any other part of the the law was anulled, or no longer to be practiced, Why didn't he remove them from practice with His own mouth? He did not. Rather, He edified the law, and confirmed it.
One would have to assume that his disciples followed His example, lest they stand defiantly against their own Master. So any interpretation anywhere in the New Covenant which does not edify and confirm Moses must necessarily be incorrect... Or one must remove the words of our Redeemer as quoted above, as they are that succinct.
Furthermore, you have no biblical reason to discount Peter’s dream, because while the intent was pertaining to gentiles, the ELEMENTS and DIALOG disprove your assertion in and of themselves.
I disagree. Whether to take any dream sequence literally is a questionable practice. Without the assumption that the dream is literal, the argument disappears. As to the narrative, the culmination of the dream is this:
Act 10:15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.
Act 10:16 This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.
(e-Sword:KJV)
While Peter wonders about the meaning of the dream, he realizes the meaning at the House of Cornelius in Ceasarea:
Act 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
The clue here is that it is *not* against the Torah to keep the company of gentiles. It is against the Pharisaical traditions to do so...
Your reply regarding Judaizers is nothing but a Pee Wee Herman “i know you are.”
Not at all. The Pharisees claimed there were TWO Torahs delivered at Sinai - the written Law, and the oral law. Within the oral law came their "authority" to write new laws, the succession of rabbis, the infallibility of the rabbis, and even the bold assertion that they could change or omit the very laws of YHWH. *None* of these things (and many, many other liberties and restrictions) are found in the written Torah.
Whose religion does that seem to compare to: Yours, or mine?
These are the very traditions which Jesus cursed the Pharisees for... Things which were obviously added to the Torah (which is against the Torah), causing the word of YHWH to be made null, and creating a religion that was impossible for the laity to follow. It is the following of the Rabbis, over the following of the Torah which defines a "Judaizer."
And finally, the part I don’t understand that you can explain for me is how noting Abraham was saved by grace gives any indication what so ever as to practice of Torah observance in the early church.
Nothing. You had mentioned "works of the Law" as being something which had changed - I merely observed that it has always been about grace through faith, all the way back to Abraham. "Works of the Law" have never been a factor.
While I am not above getting a little rowdy, understand that I really am not trying to offend in this sidebar. If some of my statements are a bit sharp on the edge, it is just a matter of my nature. I am interested in the meat of the thing, and will suffer but the meanest sort of decorum in that pursuit. Particularly with papertyger, whom I have found to be of the same nature, and capable of a formidable argument, without the need (nor apparent preference) for genteel sundries.
And yourself, for that matter, for much the same reasons, though your FRiendship with me has always been more likely (than any other papist) to remain congenial despite my direct and declared opposition (which I find to be an admirable trait, btw).
Just to kick the flywheel, I think the roamer is wrong (but he thinks I'm wrong, da noive!, so that's okay)
Sheesh! I am SO surprised (and it IS okay).
if it were me I would examine what fulfilling the law means [...]
And if it were me (instead of this pre-recorded public service announcement), I might reply that it is a moot point until ALL of the Law is fulfilled. We are but at the halfway mark. The intermission is over, and the final act is on it's way. When that has completed, have your guy talk to my guy... We'll do lunch, and pound it out. (note: "Till heaven and earth pass away"... Heaven is still there, Earth is still here).
[...] and what a NEW covenant might imply.
Any implications are overridden by Christ's own declaration, in no uncertain terms, that we are to do and teach the law. If He meant for the law to be annulled or superseded, then His statement seems inappropriate (explicit trumps implicit).
And the term "new," at the declaring of the new covenant (Jer 31:31 for instance) is rooted in "rebuild, renew" (as is "new heaven, new earth," which explains how heaven/earth are both forever and can still pass away)
In thinking about fulfilling the law, I would suggest that our modern distinction between criminal lawand civil (torts 'n stuff) law may not apply to the Bible.
In the sense of "complete," you are correct. But it is not YET complete (see above), else we (well, some of us anyhoo) would be in immortal bodies even now. And there are promises which must be kept in the legal sense of fulfillment as well: Covenants are contracts, after all.
I realize that . . . difference, conflict exists . . .
It’s never been a big priority to me.
Have watched most of his stuff.
2,298 is not your post . . . What post did you mean?
John 6:53-58 53So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever."
But they neglect the verse where He says
John 6:63 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
It's the SPIRIT who gives life, not a piece of bread or an eucharist.
Amen
Who asked you to be the stand in for the Holy Spirit? Why are you presuming that others haven't considered stuff before? Who elected you to make sure everyone does what you think they should? Or did you just appoint yourself?
What hubris.
Yeah, what hubris?
Did you see any hubris?
I didn’t see any hubris.
Whatchyoo talkn’ ‘bout Willis?!?
Thanks for your reply. I’ve posted the link to scriptural rebuttals to all the objections too many times to do it again here.
I will say that I never can see the logic that “do this in remembrance” changes at all what it is you are to do.
Thanks again.
Happy Easter. Be well.
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.