Posted on 01/07/2018 1:17:40 PM PST by tiredofallofit
But that chain of authority is often not so clear in the church world, especially amongst non-denominational evangelicals. If a man or woman steps up behind a pulpit and speaks to us authoritatively on matters of theology, why do we automatically accept this authority? Is it because we like what we hear? Or do we validate the authority because the pastor’s interpretation of the Bible jives with our own understanding? But who are we to even make that judgement? Why is our interpretation of the Bible any better than the person sitting next to us on the pew? And if we disagree with an aspect of the pastor’s views, do we have a right to question him? Or do we have to accept what he says because we have already consented to his authority?
(Excerpt) Read more at runningawayfrommychurch.com ...
See my post 298. That’s your answer. Context.
“Why does the ‘is’ in Mat3:17 not mean the same as the ‘is’ in “Now as they were eating, ...”
Do you really not know the answer, or are you playing coy?
Since good ealgeone answered your question, I have time to ask better questions...
1. If we assume your claim is accurate, for the sake of argument, please show The bread was transformed into chunks of bloody flesh and a cup of actual blood.
2. If we assume your claim is accurate, for the sake of argument, please show We are taught an identical transformation would ever happen again.
3. Please show any Apostle teaching it was Christ’s actual physical flesh and blood in future “rememberances” of his death.
Thank you, oh prolific FReeper!
I made one response to another person about my concerns and wish I'd had sense enough to leave well enough alone.
I only started worrying about all this gradually; I think it was the abortion issue that set me on that path. Before that, my idea was that most people choose a church they like and feel comfortable going to regardless of their history, beliefs and practices.
I wondered why it doesn't seem to bother most other people I've fellowshipped with. I can't think of anyone who has agonized or worried the way I do about things the way I've come to do. I have some insights about how and why I've come to feel about God, never being good enough no matter how hard I try, and being scared by the way some Catholics still really believe. In my intellect I understand it's about having the faith of a little child in Jesus Christ but I still have almost a holy terror in my heart. What really did it was reading the anathemas of the Council of Trent, over 90. There is only one anathema in the bible, St. Paul about anyone who preaches any other gospel.
You could say that there might be some more implicit ones and the Book of Revelation for any who worship the Beast and receive his mark.
That is guilt tripping people into performing religious activities that some church decided they need to do.
And they are religious obligations set forth by a CHURCH that God doesn't require of us.
we are not obligated to do them and by doing them I don't even think that pleases God.
Also, the best definition of legalism I ever heard was that God convicts a person that there's something they need to do for Him, and that person then goes out and demands that everyone else fall in line with him in doing it, when God never asked or required of it from anyone else.
Some of that stuff isn't even found in Scripture.
I know the answer. It is exactly the same is. This is my son. This is my body. The same word. The same reality.
If the bread 'represents' the body of Christ, Whatever appeared in Mat 3:17 was not Christ, was not the son of God. Just a representation.
Yep...If a person is not born again, whether he/she is a baptized Catholic or a tongues speaking Pentecostal or a bible reading, street preaching Baptist, a pope, pastor or bishop he/she is neither a Christian nor a member of the Body of Christ...
It is impossible for an organization or institution to be the Body of Christ...
Context is really lost on you isn’t it?
I keep telling our Roman Catholic friends if their understanding of John 6 is correct then the remainder of the NT is incorrect.
The real words of Scripture are really lost on you, aren't they?
Is means Is. Is does not mean represents.
43“If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life crippled, than, having your two hands, to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire, Mark 9:43 NASB
47“If your eye causes you to stumble, throw it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than, having two eyes, to be cast into hell, Mark 9:47 NASB
Waiting for the pictures of you showing your missing hands and eyes.
You need to get serious...Saying 'I am' is no different than me saying 'he is'...Am, Is, Was, Will be...
When God said, " and behold, a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.” Mat 3:17, it is the same ‘is’. The same in Greek. Is means is, except to those who have non-scriptural beliefs.
Which is no differnt that Jesus saying, 'I am the beloved Son in whom the Father is well pleased'...Or of God speaking about his Son, 'Jesus is the door'...You have no argument...
I take it you've sold all of your stuff??
Still obfuscating, and refusing to answer the question asked. Where in Scripture does IS mean REPRESENTS?
Stop obfuscating and answer the question asked. Where in Scripture does IS mean REPRESENTS? We'll get to your other questions later.
Well quit trying...You're not going to make it anyway...
That's why Jesus died...He took our sin and gave us his righteousness...
I realize it doesn't look that way when you look around at other Christians, but when it comes time for Jesus to present us to His Father, all the Father will see in us is the Righteousness of Jesus...
So quit trying...Let Jesus work in you and thru you...You'll recognize and know the difference...
The actual words of the New Testament gives us the answer. Everything changed with Christ. This is My Body means this IS MY Body
And am means am...
Doesn't it seem foolish to you for you to claim that is means is but am doesn't mean am???
In this passage Jesus tells the woman if anyone drinks of the water they'll never thirst again. He indicates the water He will give the woman will lead to eternal life.
She didn't understand. She was taking him literally.
If we apply Roman Catholic thinking to this passage we have to believe Jesus will give us water to drink and we'll never be thirsty and that drinking water leads to eternal life.
Are you willing to say this passage is to be understood literally?
The Jews in John 6 made the same mistake. They weren't listening to the message.
This is why I said context is key to understanding the New Testament.
Jesus made it clear in John 6:40 the meaning of the passage.
40“For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.” John 6:40 NASB
Those Jews, like Roman Catholics, didn't hear the message.
The account of the woman at the well.
7There came a woman of Samaria to draw water. Jesus said to her, “Give Me a drink.” 8For His disciples had gone away into the city to buy food. 9Therefore the Samaritan woman said to Him, “How is it that You, being a Jew, ask me for a drink since I am a Samaritan woman?” (For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.) 10Jesus answered and said to her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, ‘Give Me a drink,’ you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water.” 11She said to Him, “Sir, You have nothing to draw with and the well is deep; where then do You get that living water? 12“You are not greater than our father Jacob, are You, who gave us the well, and drank of it himself and his sons and his cattle?” 13Jesus answered and said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again; 14but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life.” John 4:7-14 NASB
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.