Posted on 02/09/2015 12:47:13 PM PST by RnMomof7
where does the free will part come in??
How do you know they are not bothered by it? Have you met them all, and asked each one? No, you say, you haven't? I see, so you really don't know for sure, you just made a blanket statement, without really having a clue what you are talking about. That's ok, I expect that from you. I am a proud member of the 27th United Fellowship of the Navigators 3rd Division of the Headquarters of the Lord Jesus Christ of the Sleepy Green Meadows 1933 Version Church. Before they let me in, I had to say that backwards 10 times, without error. Being as I am a sharp guy, it only took me 5 minutes to learn. That's a long title, but we are all close to God. It's beautiful. We just returned from preaching the Gospel. Guess who we were preaching to?😄😃😇 That was beautiful too. I think I will do it again in a couple days😀😊🆒 You know how I love to preach🔊
Your interpretation has some problems. First of all Jesus used the phrase "my words are spirit" and "the flesh profiteth nothing" in the same conversation that they were talking about "eating His flesh". The focus at that point was His statement "eat my flesh". Why would you inject your statement "Flesh also means our carnal desires" into that conversation? The inference is not in that passage. Nor is it pertinent to that conversation.
>>The Protestant error is that here Jesus is discrediting the Eucharist as His body. This is not true because if Christ's flesh had profited us nothing, He would never have taken flesh for us nor died in the flesh for us.<<
Once again you inject an inference not found in the conversation. Jesus wasn't discrediting the "remembrance of Him". Throughout scripture we see that "eating the word" refers to learning and internalizing His word. Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and John were all told to "eat the scroll". They didn't physically eat the paper. Nor was Jesus talking about eating His physical flesh.
Nor the scroll itself. Did you or anyone you know hold up a Bible and say "this is God's word"? Did you mean the paper or the information it contained?
>>However, at the Last Supper, Jesus speaks very clearly and then eats the unleavened bread. He literally ate it.<<
He literally ate the bread. If He meant that bread was actually His flesh He would have been eating Himself. If He meant that wine was in reality His physical blood He would have been sinning against the law by doing so. He was still under the Old Testament laws as were the apostles and eating blood was a sin.
>>What flesh could Jesus be talking about? There are only five options: 1. His living flesh 2. His corpse 3. our flesh 4. metaphorically as in "sins of the flesh" 5. the flesh of animals<<
We can summarily dismiss 3,4, and 5. They were not the subject of the conversation.
>>Case 1. If we profit (i.e. gain) nothing from His flesh, the the Word made flesh profits us nothing. The death of His body on the cross profits us nothing. This is clearly wrong.<<
Whoa there. Why stray from the conversation and include anything other then what was being discussed at the time which was His statement eat my flesh"? Why would you include His death on the cross. It's not part of the conversation.
>>case 3. makes sense<<
Not to me. Where in the conversation was there anything mentioned about "our flesh"? Anything other then the topic which was being discussed which was His statement "eat my flesh" is injecting something that isn't there.
The topic of the conversation was His statement "eat my flesh". In His explanation to the disciples regarding that statement He said "my words are spirit the flesh profits nothing". The only logical inference can be that He was explaining that once again He was not talking about physical flesh but that He was talking spiritually. Spiritually we "eat the word" by taking in the information which is found in scripture just as Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and John.
So your 5 options are not the only options. The other option is that He was saying internalize the word of God just as was the case for Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and John. Understand and internalize the truth and the meaning of my death and resurrection.
Not true. All churches I've been in preach against it........and remarriage even though we all recognize it as adultry...does your new 1933 sect O.K. that too???
Catholics weasel around that one with annulments.
It allows Catholics church sanctioned break up or a marriage, ie. DIVORCE.
Read His statement word by word "eat.......my.......flesh". That was the statement under discussion. Eating the flesh profits nothing. The flesh profits nothing if you actually eat it.Proverbs 4:20 My son, give attention to my words; Incline your ear to my sayings. 21 Let them not depart from thine eyes; keep them in the midst of thine heart. 22 For they are life unto those that find them, and health to all their flesh.
John 4:34 Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.
Jeremiah 15:16 Thy were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts.
Hebrews 5:12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. 13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. 14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
1 Corinthians 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. 2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.
WHOA MR. I love to have no rules....I made no accusations whatsoever...my post was in the form of a question....Does your 1933 sect O.K. divorce after remarriage.....something against those "Catholic" rules????simple question....do they O.K. adultry or do they agree (for a change) with Catholicism??????
If He did eat Himself, yes, He would have sinned.
Consuming blood was strictly forbidden by God, well before the Law was given even.
Don't eat the blood, the life is in the blood
Genesis 9:4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life , that is, its blood.
Leviticus 3:17 It shall be a statute forever throughout your generations, in all your dwelling places, that you eat neither fat nor blood.”
Leviticus 7:26-27 Moreover, you shall eat no blood whatever, whether of fowl or of animal, in any of your dwelling places. Whoever eats any blood, that person shall be cut off from his people.”
Leviticus 17:10-14 “If any one of the house of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn among them eats any blood, I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life. Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, No person among you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger who sojourns among you eat blood.
“Any one also of the people of Israel, or of the strangers who sojourn among them, who takes in hunting any beast or bird that may be eaten shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth. For the life of every creature is its blood: its blood is its life. Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood. Whoever eats it shall be cut off.
Leviticus 19:26 “You shall not eat any flesh with the blood in it. You shall not interpret omens or tell fortunes.
Deuteronomy 12:16 Only you shall not eat the blood ; you shall pour it out on the earth like water.
Deuteronomy 12:23 Only be sure that you do not eat the blood, for the blood is the life , and you shall not eat the life with the flesh.
Deuteronomy 15:23 Only you shall not eat its blood; you shall pour it out on the ground like water.
Acts 15:12-29 And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. After they finished speaking, James replied, “Brothers, listen to me. Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name. And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written,
“‘After this I will return, and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who makes these things known from of old.’
Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”
Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brothers, with the following letter:
“The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions, it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”
Matthew 26:29 I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”
Mark 14:25 Truly, I say to you, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”
Luke 22:18 For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”
Are you saying that Jesus broke the very Law He handed down from Mt. Sinai, and that He said not the smallest jot or tittle would pass away from, the Law that He came to FULFILL?
That's the Law He broke when He ate Himself?
Say, is that official teaching of the Catholic church? Where in the Catechism of the Catholic church can that be found?
That wouldn't be YOPIOCCC now would it?
Before they let you in you had to denounce your true faith 10 times which is the same as repeating theirs backwards and because you just think that you're sharp....you did it....sad.
WOW...again you slept through religion class...to obtain an annulment in the Catholic church you must have grounds and show that a legitimate marriage did not take place. Was the bride your second cousin, was she married before, did she refuse to accept the possibility of bearing children, was she forced by circumstances to enter the marriage, was she qualified to recieve the sacrament of Matrimony, etc, etc, etc...it is not easy and in fact, right now, there is a gigantic effort in the Vatican to relook at the remarriage question.......(they won't)
Excuse me sir. Let me quote you again, in case you may have forgotten what you wrote. "Protestants aren't really bothered by divorce and remarriage even though we all recognize it as adultry...does your new 1933 sect O.K. that too???" Now sir, in catholic school, if there was one thing those nuns taught me to do, it was to read and write. I looked at your own post, which I have now quoted to you twice, and yet you still say you made no accusations whatsoever? If that isn't a clear case of catholic speak, then we need to bottle it and sell it, and make some good money.
I never said I disagree with 100% of what catholics say, only about 90%.
I never said I was a "no rules" kind of guy, only that I love to break catholic rules, like I never go to mass, I never go to a priest to confess my sins. I do not pray to the holy saints. I do not do the rosary, I don't pay attention to feast days. So, I do indeed break those man made rules. In order to get into my "church" as you call it, I needed to renounce my non faith and get true faith. It was not sad, it was wonderful. Well, I have to go now. I have people to preach to, most of whom belong to another religious persuasion, which will remain unnamed. 😄😇😃🆒
pretty blue eyes....gg
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.