It's a matter of emphasis, really. I guess we could think about it for years without reaching the full depth of St. Paul's words:
"For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified."
1 Corinthians 2:2
Posted on 08/05/2013 10:31:02 AM PDT by Gamecock
Question:
Does the OPC use the crucifix in the church? If not, are they opposed to it?
Answer:
Thank you for your question. The answer is, so far as I know, the crucifix is not used in OPC churches, and here is why:
1.The Second Commandment (Ex. 20:4-6 and Deut. 5:8-10) forbids any picture or image of God, and that would include the Son of God, even as man. At any rate we do not know what Jesus looked like as there is no physical description of him.
2.The crucifix will always end up being an object of worship—regarded as holy. History teaches as much. The bronze serpent Moses made became an object of worship and was not destroyed till King Hezekiah did it (Numbers 21:9; 2 Kings 18:1-5). Roman Catholics have worshipped it, kissed it and held it to have mystical powers.
3.Christ did not remain on the Cross. In the Roman Church Christ is said to be resacrificed each time the Mass is celebrated. This is heresy; he died once for all—Hebrews 9:25-28.
We in the OPC have learned not to trust our idolatry prone hearts not to do the same as others have in the past. Hence, no crucifixes are used. So, yes, we are opposed to it.
I'm glad I'm just a hobby gardener. If I had to live on what I grow, I'd be--- a very slender lass ...
However, if I learn from my mistakes, I'll be a genius :o).
OK, to save time, I agree with purt'near everything you wrote in the first half of your reply, up to the midpoint sentence which begins, "From that living flesh body..."
Here I think it starts to be a little ambiguous. You say "However, in doing so, He left something out of every cell of [Eve's] body: the y chromosome."
Look, Eve had 2 big strong X chromosomes and was initially designed to live forever, just Adam was. The male Y chromosome, in contrast, has far fewer genes, and codes for only 23 distinct proteins (out of, like, tens of thousands.) It's also particularly exposed to high mutation rates. It's like a fragment of an X chromosome, and much frailer.
That may be significant or insignificant, I don't know. I'm not pressing a wider point here. But I just wanted to correct the impression that the female is like a male "with something left out." It's more likely the contrary.
You go on to suggest (if I am understanding you correctly) that God made Mary pregnant by means of something like IVF: that she had an embryo transferred into her who was not her genetic offspring, i.e. she was the gestational but not the genetic mother. Am I getting your meaning here?
If so, this is surely false. The genealogy from Luke is the genetic line of descent through Mary, who was Jesus' only human genetic parent. She was His genetic, gestational, parturient and lactational (as well as legal and social) mother.
Presumably the Lord God may have chosen to create a Y-chromosome so that His Son would be a male. I don't know. But the X part of the inheritance was all Mary's. If Mary was not Jesus' genetic mother, it would be senseless to put Mary's genealogy in the Gospel of Luke, and Jesus would not truly be a Jew, a son of Adam and of Abraham and of David according to the flesh, nor even a human being.
The Muslims, incidentally, believe that God implanted a baby in Mary's womb who was simply a created individual, like Adam:
"Truly, the likeness of Jesus [Issa], in God's sight, is as Adam's likeness; He created him of dust, then said He unto him, 'Be,' and he was." Koran, S. 3:59
This is just one of the serious religious errors in the Koran.
The biological facts about the migration of stem cells through the placenta, the presence of the mother's mitochondria in every cell of her child's body, and the massive enrichment of breast milk with billions of maternal cells, are not speculation. They are true of Christ and Mary, if Christ is True Man.
What the theological significance may be --- that is speculative.
As to the Shroud of Turn, I have no opinion, one way or the other.
God bless you. Now, back to the spinach.
Would you mind providing the scriptural citation of God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit sinning. I mean if all means ALL...
Thank you.
You mean the ‘smart guy’ that cannot believe that his opinion isn’t scripture? (such an obscure idea!)
The “Eucharist” is for pagan sorcers.
The bread that represents the broken body of Yeshua is for his sheep.
That is how it is according to scripture that has not been modified by pagan tongue. Those pagans are the scoffers foretold by the apostles. Scoffers love the magical sorcery of the eucharist. There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, and that way is the eucharist.
Sad to see someone mock the word like that.
The real written words of Yeshua were “this represents my body as you do this in REMEMBRANCE of me.”
the above is a direct quote from you in a prior post in this thread. it has quote marks around it, i CHALLENGED you to provide where in the Scriptures we find that quote.
of course none were provided as it is A MADE UP QUOTE, JESUS NEVER SPOKE THESE WORDS.
WHAT ARROGANCE AND PRESUMPTION FOR ONE TO DARE AND MISQUOTE THE LORD.
now we get dribble about “pagan sorcers”.
i will ask one more time, please provide the Scriptural source for your quote of “Yeshua” or retract it.
I do completely understand your passion for our Lord, and your understanding of the word of God, I just do not like the crucifix, and I do not understand the connection between memorializing a dying and tortured body, and our faith in the reasons Jesus died for us. Without the death of Jesus we do not have a risen and living savior. THAT is the reason to preach Jesus crucified.
I am just telling you that as a Christian, I was horrified when I realized that a Catholic crucifix was a dying Christ on a cross.
That was my honest reaction.
It horrifies and offends me, and makes me feel so sad that people would choose to keep Jesus on the cross.
The day of Pentecost, for example, was a hugely important day, and Jesus was not on the cross that day, he was alive then.
All you need is an ordinary KJV Bible, and your questions would be answered.
When I see someone revolting at the wording of the most common Bible translation in the world, I know I’m dealing with a deliberate deceiver.
>> “The day of Pentecost, for example, was a hugely important day, and Jesus was not on the cross that day, he was alive then.” <<
.
Only to his own!
The rest just knew it had to be a scam, and they are still counting on a scam to this day.
It’s more like you don’t want to understand it as it was way to obvious to miss it.
I think they’d be in more danger by Denying Christ as God in the flesh as Ignatias’ master taught in 1John 4. The Epistle to the Smyrnians was not counted as a book in the Bible. Still, God equates the taking of the eucharist as though it were the same as taking the actual flesh of Christ as Paul warns that it should not be taken in an “unworthy manner”! Higher order supra-temporal laws apply here, no matter what earthly substance the Eucharist is made from!
So ALL doesn't mean ALL? Is that what you are saying?
I remember, though, as a little girl kneeling in front of a big crucifix made of some kind of shiny black wood, maybe it was ebony. I remember it as being huge, certainly bigger than me, maybe bigger than a man standing, though of course for a little girl the memory may be larger than life. But I was kneeling looking at the figure of Christ on that cross, and all the pity in my little heart ran over, to think that He would willingly do that for me.
It bears thinking about, and even "feeling" about. We should not get comfortable with it. The plain shock of it can bring us to repentance, and even compassion, certainly gratitude I hope.
The sorrow has its proper place. Right between joy and glory.
I guess this is some of the mocking of God's word that editor just accused me of.
Basically what I am saying is that a vacant Cross shows Yashua risen and is no longer on it.
>> “So ALL doesn’t mean ALL? Is that what you are saying?” <<
.
Your argument is so foolish feckless and frivolous that it is hard to imagine what keeps you from doing ‘the honorable thing’ when you stand in front of the mirror with your razor in hand.
It's a matter of emphasis, really. I guess we could think about it for years without reaching the full depth of St. Paul's words:
"For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified."
1 Corinthians 2:2
>> “Basically what I am saying is that a vacant Cross shows Yashua risen and is no longer on it.” <<
.
But that can’t be true, catholic sorcerers have been re-sacrificing him for over 1600 years. Are you telling us that they are ineffective?
Paul was speaking in the past tense. Crucified. He’s now risen. Why keep showing Him on the Cross is all I’m saying.
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.